Trinnov Altitude - Page 252 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 3471Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #7531 of 9076 Old 06-20-2019, 06:10 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Bulldogger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 7,123
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 337 Post(s)
Liked: 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by magicvinny View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by santodx5 View Post
Yes I always use audio only from 205 but the coax still sounds better.


I'm buying a coax cable now with 75ohm RCA connector, we will see.



Also I'm trying to get Audioquest HDMI diamond to compare.
Curious about your findings!

I had the same experience with coax vs HDMI. Coax just sounded better to me(Oppo -> Lyngdorf TDAI)

I'm in the process of builing my Atmos HT and using the Lyngdorf MP50. Still I'm hesitating if I should modify my Oppo 203
with the VanityHD digital board so I have digital 7.1 out and then use 4 "power"DACS(Lyngdorf TDAI). Sound must be amazing but biggest downside is you lose Dolby Atmos!! So desision is quality or quantity.
I use an HTPC running Jriver with a Lynx AES16 card into external dacs. I need to investigate the Lynddorf TDAl. Of course no Dolby Atmos with this approach yet. The Lynx card does also give you the option to use an external word clock. If there is ever decoding of Atmos with the Lynx card you could output 16 channels.

Never become so involved with something that it blinds you.
Bulldogger is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #7532 of 9076 Old 06-20-2019, 01:02 PM
Advanced Member
 
Berland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 654
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 417 Post(s)
Liked: 251
Yet another PEQ session (this for S1). No Trinnov optimizer included in these measurements.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Skjermbilde 2019-06-20 kl. 21.19.26.png
Views:	58
Size:	306.6 KB
ID:	2582442   Click image for larger version

Name:	Skjermbilde 2019-06-20 kl. 21.21.06.png
Views:	46
Size:	1.57 MB
ID:	2582444   Click image for larger version

Name:	Skjermbilde 2019-06-20 kl. 21.21.43.png
Views:	42
Size:	1.53 MB
ID:	2582446  

HT: Trinnov Altitude32 (AL32-1632)/Amplitude8/8M - BRYSTON 4B SST2 - B&W 802D3, 803D2, 2*DB1, HTM2D2, 804D2, SCMS, Nautilus SCM1, 805D2 - NORDOST Heimdall2/Frey2 - ISOTEK EVO3 Titan,Sigmas - LG OLED65B7V - GIK ACOUSTICS
HP: 2*MOON 430HA D, 2*MiND2 Network Player - 2*Yggdrasil - 2*Hydra Z/ZPM - ISOTEK EVO3 Sigmas, Aquarius - NORDOST Heimdall 2 - AUDEZE LCD-4 rev2, 2*LCD-XC - SHURE SE846
Berland is offline  
post #7533 of 9076 Old 06-20-2019, 01:18 PM
RUR
Innocent Bystander
 
RUR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Beershorn
Posts: 3,088
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 655 Post(s)
Liked: 601
Impressive. You’re using the PEQ Settings from REW?
RUR is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #7534 of 9076 Old 06-20-2019, 01:38 PM
Advanced Member
 
Berland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 654
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 417 Post(s)
Liked: 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by RUR View Post
Impressive. You’re using the PEQ Settings from REW?
No, that does not work very well in my experience. I do it the "real" way. Take a measurement; do adjustments - take a new measurement - correct adjustments, take new measurement - do adjustments (usually starts at lowest frequency and fix the main issues on curve first; then finetune). I takes a lot of work and time, but it give good result. I need to listen to the frequency sweep to know if I have pushed something too hard in PEQ. No automation can handle that for you.

HT: Trinnov Altitude32 (AL32-1632)/Amplitude8/8M - BRYSTON 4B SST2 - B&W 802D3, 803D2, 2*DB1, HTM2D2, 804D2, SCMS, Nautilus SCM1, 805D2 - NORDOST Heimdall2/Frey2 - ISOTEK EVO3 Titan,Sigmas - LG OLED65B7V - GIK ACOUSTICS
HP: 2*MOON 430HA D, 2*MiND2 Network Player - 2*Yggdrasil - 2*Hydra Z/ZPM - ISOTEK EVO3 Sigmas, Aquarius - NORDOST Heimdall 2 - AUDEZE LCD-4 rev2, 2*LCD-XC - SHURE SE846
Berland is offline  
post #7535 of 9076 Old 06-20-2019, 02:13 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
audioguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Not far from Atlanta - but far enough!
Posts: 9,567
Mentioned: 96 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4982 Post(s)
Liked: 3822
Quote:
Originally Posted by Berland View Post
No, that does not work very well in my experience. I do it the "real" way. Take a measurement; do adjustments - take a new measurement - correct adjustments, take new measurement - do adjustments (usually starts at lowest frequency and fix the main issues on curve first; then finetune). I takes a lot of work and time, but it give good result. I need to listen to the frequency sweep to know if I have pushed something too hard in PEQ. No automation can handle that for you.
I used to do it that way. I use OmniMic to calculate filter components but correct in fairly short frequency segments to get the most linear results.
Berland likes this.
audioguy is offline  
post #7536 of 9076 Old 06-21-2019, 02:35 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Wookii's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 3,570
Mentioned: 60 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3020 Post(s)
Liked: 2228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Berland View Post
Yet another PEQ session (this for S1). No Trinnov optimizer included in these measurements.
When you say 'S1' is that your combined sub response, or do you just have one sub?

One word of warning, you have to be very careful with that approach. If its a single sub, cranking up the sub gain to bring the troughs in response up above your target reference SPL level could mean you significantly reduce your dynamic headroom. You've got a 35dB cut at 20Hz, so it could be asking a lot of the sub amp to then push back up to a 95dB dynamic peak at 20Hz during playback.
Wookii is online now  
post #7537 of 9076 Old 06-21-2019, 06:28 AM
Advanced Member
 
Berland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 654
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 417 Post(s)
Liked: 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wookii View Post
When you say 'S1' is that your combined sub response, or do you just have one sub?

One word of warning, you have to be very careful with that approach. If its a single sub, cranking up the sub gain to bring the troughs in response up above your target reference SPL level could mean you significantly reduce your dynamic headroom. You've got a 35dB cut at 20Hz, so it could be asking a lot of the sub amp to then push back up to a 95dB dynamic peak at 20Hz during playback.
I currently have 2 subs; plan to add 2 more soon.

S1 = my left front sub
S2 = right front sub.

HT: Trinnov Altitude32 (AL32-1632)/Amplitude8/8M - BRYSTON 4B SST2 - B&W 802D3, 803D2, 2*DB1, HTM2D2, 804D2, SCMS, Nautilus SCM1, 805D2 - NORDOST Heimdall2/Frey2 - ISOTEK EVO3 Titan,Sigmas - LG OLED65B7V - GIK ACOUSTICS
HP: 2*MOON 430HA D, 2*MiND2 Network Player - 2*Yggdrasil - 2*Hydra Z/ZPM - ISOTEK EVO3 Sigmas, Aquarius - NORDOST Heimdall 2 - AUDEZE LCD-4 rev2, 2*LCD-XC - SHURE SE846

Last edited by Berland; 06-21-2019 at 08:11 AM.
Berland is offline  
post #7538 of 9076 Old 06-21-2019, 10:34 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Wookii's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 3,570
Mentioned: 60 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3020 Post(s)
Liked: 2228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Berland View Post
I currently have 2 subs; plan to add 2 more soon.

S1 = my left front sub
S2 = right front sub.
Is that EQ you’ve been doing on a single sub then? In that case you really want to try and EQ them in combination. The whole point of having more than one sub is that 2 or more subs in combination can achieve a smoother combined response than a single sub. You should find that certain peaks in response on one sub cancel troughs in response of the other sub giving less seat to seat variation, and requiring less PEQ filters.

You can use a program like Multi-Sub Optimiser (MSO) into which you can load your individual sub measurements taken in REW, which should take out a lot of the manual iteration.
Wookii is online now  
post #7539 of 9076 Old 06-21-2019, 01:00 PM
AVS Forum Club Gold
 
appelz's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: A Hilton property near you!
Posts: 878
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 661 Post(s)
Liked: 689
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wookii View Post
Is that EQ you’ve been doing on a single sub then? In that case you really want to try and EQ them in combination. The whole point of having more than one sub is that 2 or more subs in combination can achieve a smoother combined response than a single sub. You should find that certain peaks in response on one sub cancel troughs in response of the other sub giving less seat to seat variation, and requiring less PEQ filters.

You can use a program like Multi-Sub Optimiser (MSO) into which you can load your individual sub measurements taken in REW, which should take out a lot of the manual iteration.
There are a couple different approaches to subwoofer optimization in small rooms. One is the Harman SFM technique with MSO mentioned above being a derivative, where you EQ each sub independently. The other, often called the Welti method (from research by Welti and Devantier while at Harman) , relies on subwoofer location and a global EQ solution. Since most of the rooms I work in are engineered spaces, seat-to-seat consistency is high, and a global EQ solution is appropriate.

The bigger point is that in small rooms, multiple subs behave like a single subwoofer. All of the above options take that into consideration. This can be clearly demonstrated. For example, if you place one subwoofer at the mid-point of the left wall, and another at the mid-point on the right wall, if they are the same phase and SPL, then aside from the additional gain from having two subwoofers, they will have the same response as a single subwoofer placed exactly in between them, in the middle of the room. This applies to rectangular spaces of course. Windows, doors, one concrete wall and the other three sheetrock and other variations will have some effect on the actual measured response, but the math is the same.

If you were to EQ those two subs to each measure flat independently, you are unlikely to see that same flat response with both subs being driven.

Adam Pelz ,Acoustic Mafia - Hear No Evil
JBL Master ARCOS Calibrator, CEDIA Designer, Home Acoustics Alliance Instructor LIII, THX HT1+ HT2+ Video, Level III Trinnov Altitude Calibrator
Mercenary Calibrator for Manufacturers, Integrators and System Owners
appelz is offline  
post #7540 of 9076 Old 06-21-2019, 01:05 PM
Advanced Member
 
Berland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 654
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 417 Post(s)
Liked: 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by Berland View Post
Yet another PEQ session (this for S1). No Trinnov optimizer included in these measurements.
This did not work well with Optimizer - not sure why. When I measure only sub1 or sub2; it it perfect. But when connecting both sub's with crossover against for example left or right speaker; it did not seemed work very well.

HT: Trinnov Altitude32 (AL32-1632)/Amplitude8/8M - BRYSTON 4B SST2 - B&W 802D3, 803D2, 2*DB1, HTM2D2, 804D2, SCMS, Nautilus SCM1, 805D2 - NORDOST Heimdall2/Frey2 - ISOTEK EVO3 Titan,Sigmas - LG OLED65B7V - GIK ACOUSTICS
HP: 2*MOON 430HA D, 2*MiND2 Network Player - 2*Yggdrasil - 2*Hydra Z/ZPM - ISOTEK EVO3 Sigmas, Aquarius - NORDOST Heimdall 2 - AUDEZE LCD-4 rev2, 2*LCD-XC - SHURE SE846
Berland is offline  
post #7541 of 9076 Old 06-22-2019, 05:53 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Wookii's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 3,570
Mentioned: 60 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3020 Post(s)
Liked: 2228
Quote:
Originally Posted by appelz View Post
There are a couple different approaches to subwoofer optimization in small rooms. One is the Harman SFM technique with MSO mentioned above being a derivative, where you EQ each sub independently. The other, often called the Welti method (from research by Welti and Devantier while at Harman) , relies on subwoofer location and a global EQ solution. Since most of the rooms I work in are engineered spaces, seat-to-seat consistency is high, and a global EQ solution is appropriate.

The bigger point is that in small rooms, multiple subs behave like a single subwoofer. All of the above options take that into consideration. This can be clearly demonstrated. For example, if you place one subwoofer at the mid-point of the left wall, and another at the mid-point on the right wall, if they are the same phase and SPL, then aside from the additional gain from having two subwoofers, they will have the same response as a single subwoofer placed exactly in between them, in the middle of the room. This applies to rectangular spaces of course. Windows, doors, one concrete wall and the other three sheetrock and other variations will have some effect on the actual measured response, but the math is the same.
Thanks Adam, yep my point to Berland was was despite the method - EQing subs globally or individually - it should always be with reference to the combined response, not the individual response as he appeared to be doing.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Berland View Post
This did not work well with Optimizer - not sure why. When I measure only sub1 or sub2; it it perfect. But when connecting both sub's with crossover against for example left or right speaker; it did not seemed work very well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by appelz View Post
If you were to EQ those two subs to each measure flat independently, you are unlikely to see that same flat response with both subs being driven.
sdrucker likes this.
Wookii is online now  
post #7542 of 9076 Old 06-22-2019, 07:56 PM
Advanced Member
 
Berland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 654
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 417 Post(s)
Liked: 251
Measuring both subs together also worked fine. Problem when combining this with crossover seems to be that sub dropped exponential at the lower part of the frequency range. I suspect this is due to dramatic usage of PEQ. When setting subs gain back to 0dB instead of +6dB; with flat curves on both subs - this seems to be working with crossover against subs resulting in a flat curve. Reason for trying the +6dB was to hopefully achieve flat sub curves above 120Hz; to enable moving the crossover higher; and to remove the need for positive gain on the PEQ.

HT: Trinnov Altitude32 (AL32-1632)/Amplitude8/8M - BRYSTON 4B SST2 - B&W 802D3, 803D2, 2*DB1, HTM2D2, 804D2, SCMS, Nautilus SCM1, 805D2 - NORDOST Heimdall2/Frey2 - ISOTEK EVO3 Titan,Sigmas - LG OLED65B7V - GIK ACOUSTICS
HP: 2*MOON 430HA D, 2*MiND2 Network Player - 2*Yggdrasil - 2*Hydra Z/ZPM - ISOTEK EVO3 Sigmas, Aquarius - NORDOST Heimdall 2 - AUDEZE LCD-4 rev2, 2*LCD-XC - SHURE SE846
Berland is offline  
post #7543 of 9076 Old 06-22-2019, 07:58 PM
Advanced Member
 
Berland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 654
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 417 Post(s)
Liked: 251
I found something interesting during tonights calibration session. If your 3D remapping on the base speakers (7.1) does not sound the same as 2D remapping. You have placed the calibration microphone wrong
mkohman likes this.

HT: Trinnov Altitude32 (AL32-1632)/Amplitude8/8M - BRYSTON 4B SST2 - B&W 802D3, 803D2, 2*DB1, HTM2D2, 804D2, SCMS, Nautilus SCM1, 805D2 - NORDOST Heimdall2/Frey2 - ISOTEK EVO3 Titan,Sigmas - LG OLED65B7V - GIK ACOUSTICS
HP: 2*MOON 430HA D, 2*MiND2 Network Player - 2*Yggdrasil - 2*Hydra Z/ZPM - ISOTEK EVO3 Sigmas, Aquarius - NORDOST Heimdall 2 - AUDEZE LCD-4 rev2, 2*LCD-XC - SHURE SE846
Berland is offline  
post #7544 of 9076 Old 06-22-2019, 11:46 PM
Advanced Member
 
mkohman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 787
Mentioned: 21 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 413 Post(s)
Liked: 344
Good morning guys, hope all well... I am new to the A16 and just trying to get my head around things.. Current configuration is 5.1.4 (5 main speakers, 1 sub and 1 Buttkicker, 4 x in ceiling atmos speakers) currently I am using 10 channels on the A16.


I have 2 power amps and will upgrade in the future but the two I have are 5 Channel Emotiva XPA 5 for my mains and a 7 channel Nakamichi amplifier for my 4 x in ceiling atmos speakers. I have the opportunity to add 3 more speakers but as they come in pairs I will only be adding another 2 into the system until I change my power amps.


What I wanted to ask is shall I add the 2 speakers as surround backs for a 7.1.4 setup or shall I add 2 speakers as front heights for a 5.1.6 setup? Which will be more beneficial in your opinion?


Current speaker configuration is 3 x HTM 12 speakers at front and 2 x Volt 8 speakers for surrounds. The additional 2 would be Volt 6's either surround back or front high presence?


Really appreciate your input.. Thank you.
mkohman is online now  
post #7545 of 9076 Old 06-23-2019, 01:48 AM
Senior Member
 
A7mad78's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 433
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 198 Post(s)
Liked: 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkohman View Post
Good morning guys, hope all well... I am new to the A16 and just trying to get my head around things.. Current configuration is 5.1.4 (5 main speakers, 1 sub and 1 Buttkicker, 4 x in ceiling atmos speakers) currently I am using 10 channels on the A16.


I have 2 power amps and will upgrade in the future but the two I have are 5 Channel Emotiva XPA 5 for my mains and a 7 channel Nakamichi amplifier for my 4 x in ceiling atmos speakers. I have the opportunity to add 3 more speakers but as they come in pairs I will only be adding another 2 into the system until I change my power amps.


What I wanted to ask is shall I add the 2 speakers as surround backs for a 7.1.4 setup or shall I add 2 speakers as front heights for a 5.1.6 setup? Which will be more beneficial in your opinion?


Current speaker configuration is 3 x HTM 12 speakers at front and 2 x Volt 8 speakers for surrounds. The additional 2 would be Volt 6's either surround back or front high presence?


Really appreciate your input.. Thank you.


With the 16 go for the max 9.x.6


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
mkohman likes this.
A7mad78 is online now  
post #7546 of 9076 Old 06-23-2019, 05:14 AM
Advanced Member
 
Berland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 654
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 417 Post(s)
Liked: 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by A7mad78 View Post
With the 16 go for the max 9.x.6
This is a good recommendation - with 9.x.6 you can also cover all formats using Trinnov's recommended setup.
mkohman and A7mad78 like this.

HT: Trinnov Altitude32 (AL32-1632)/Amplitude8/8M - BRYSTON 4B SST2 - B&W 802D3, 803D2, 2*DB1, HTM2D2, 804D2, SCMS, Nautilus SCM1, 805D2 - NORDOST Heimdall2/Frey2 - ISOTEK EVO3 Titan,Sigmas - LG OLED65B7V - GIK ACOUSTICS
HP: 2*MOON 430HA D, 2*MiND2 Network Player - 2*Yggdrasil - 2*Hydra Z/ZPM - ISOTEK EVO3 Sigmas, Aquarius - NORDOST Heimdall 2 - AUDEZE LCD-4 rev2, 2*LCD-XC - SHURE SE846
Berland is offline  
post #7547 of 9076 Old 06-23-2019, 05:15 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
audioguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Not far from Atlanta - but far enough!
Posts: 9,567
Mentioned: 96 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4982 Post(s)
Liked: 3822
Start off with 7.x.4 and then move to 7.x.6, then move to 9.x.6.

Wides are still massively under utilized (as are all other speakers other than 7.x.4). For any of you who have a full 9.x.6 configuration or greater, it is VERY easy in the Trinnov to set up various configurations and test my theory. Currently, the optimum speaker count is still 7.x.4, with rapidly diminishing returns as you add more speakers. As I said, very easy to test. I'm not suggesting that more is not better, only that 7.x.4 today is still the the best "bang for the buck".
mkohman, llang269 and A7mad78 like this.
audioguy is offline  
post #7548 of 9076 Old 06-23-2019, 05:54 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
ss9001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: metro Atlanta
Posts: 9,307
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 653 Post(s)
Liked: 658
^^
Speaking of under-utilization, we watched Mary Queen of Scots last night, 4K & Atmos. For almost 100% of the time, the only overheads that saw activity were the Top Mids. While they were used a lot, there was virtually no TF/TR activity, maybe only twice did I see those meters register. Very unusual since my observations, it's the opposite, where Top Fronts/Rears see activity but not Mids. I can't say I recall another movie where the Mids get all the activity.

The input/output meters don't lie. They will give you clues about how the track was mixed.

I'm not 100% sure what could cause this but I'll throw out this idea - If overheads treated as channels, and if overhead sounds are sent to both Fronts & Rears equally, would the renderer phantom image the TF/TR and send them to the TM? To me, it looked like the studio mixed the overheads as 2 channels then spread across the overheads.

What I didn't do is turn off the Mids, and see how the TF & TR were used. I may do that today just to see if they both are identical in levels, my guess is they will be.

It was still a very enjoyable soundtrack but disappointing that another title & studio is under-utilizing Atmos or hard-printing to 7.1.4.

BTW - movie is well acted and good historical drama. Dolby Vision & native 4K were a plus.

Steve

Last edited by ss9001; 06-23-2019 at 06:47 AM.
ss9001 is online now  
post #7549 of 9076 Old 06-23-2019, 05:57 AM
Advanced Member
 
mkohman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 787
Mentioned: 21 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 413 Post(s)
Liked: 344
Quote:
Originally Posted by A7mad78 View Post
With the 16 go for the max 9.x.6


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thank you so you mean skip the high presence and go with the back surrounds?
mkohman is online now  
post #7550 of 9076 Old 06-23-2019, 06:00 AM
Advanced Member
 
mkohman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 787
Mentioned: 21 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 413 Post(s)
Liked: 344
Quote:
Originally Posted by Berland View Post
This is a good recommendation - with 9.x.6 you can also cover all formats using Trinnov's recommended setup.
Thank you so you mean 7 base channels with the addition of 2 x wides = 9.1.6 (as in 6 ceiling atmos channels)? Thank you
mkohman is online now  
post #7551 of 9076 Old 06-23-2019, 06:04 AM
Advanced Member
 
mkohman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 787
Mentioned: 21 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 413 Post(s)
Liked: 344
Quote:
Originally Posted by audioguy View Post
Start off with 7.x.4 and then move to 7.x.6, then move to 9.x.6.

Wides are still massively under utilized (as are all other speakers other than 7.x.4). For any of you who have a full 9.x.6 configuration or greater, it is VERY easy in the Trinnov to set up various configurations and test my theory. Currently, the optimum speaker count is still 7.x.4, with rapidly diminishing returns as you add more speakers. As I said, very easy to test. I'm not suggesting that more is not better, only that 7.x.4 today is still the the best "bang for the buck".
Thank you, I think I have kind of made my mind now .. I will more than likely go with the back surrounds option.. My only worry is this. all my speakers LCR (HTM 12's) and the Volt 8's are all ported. am I ok to build the volt 6's as my back surrounds in a sealed cabinet ? Or do they need to be ported also? The reason I ask is because I like the DIYSG sealed atmos type cabinet and they are only 8 inches wide and tall with 6.5 inches deep.. thank you.
mkohman is online now  
post #7552 of 9076 Old 06-23-2019, 06:41 AM
Advanced Member
 
Lasalle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Sarasota, FL
Posts: 944
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 581 Post(s)
Liked: 466
Part 2 of Trinnov’s recommended speaker setup is in the latest issue of the WSR. Very consistent with the recommendations I received
From Trinnov for my HT.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	52CA4E43-3836-4D60-80A0-EFC59084580D.jpg
Views:	65
Size:	564.7 KB
ID:	2583376   Click image for larger version

Name:	96CFA823-41A5-4526-BB03-8C14CF7D086A.png
Views:	62
Size:	6.05 MB
ID:	2583378  
ss9001 and mkohman like this.
Lasalle is online now  
post #7553 of 9076 Old 06-23-2019, 09:35 AM
AVS Forum Club Gold
 
appelz's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: A Hilton property near you!
Posts: 878
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 661 Post(s)
Liked: 689
Quote:
Originally Posted by audioguy View Post
Start off with 7.x.4 and then move to 7.x.6, then move to 9.x.6.

Wides are still massively under utilized (as are all other speakers other than 7.x.4). For any of you who have a full 9.x.6 configuration or greater, it is VERY easy in the Trinnov to set up various configurations and test my theory. Currently, the optimum speaker count is still 7.x.4, with rapidly diminishing returns as you add more speakers. As I said, very easy to test. I'm not suggesting that more is not better, only that 7.x.4 today is still the the best "bang for the buck".
I'm not going to speak to "best bang for the buck", but I've worked on quite a few 11-15.1.8 systems (14 Trinnov calibration this year) and I see a lot of object activity in lots of the demo content I play.

Adam Pelz ,Acoustic Mafia - Hear No Evil
JBL Master ARCOS Calibrator, CEDIA Designer, Home Acoustics Alliance Instructor LIII, THX HT1+ HT2+ Video, Level III Trinnov Altitude Calibrator
Mercenary Calibrator for Manufacturers, Integrators and System Owners
appelz is offline  
post #7554 of 9076 Old 06-23-2019, 11:30 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
audioguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Not far from Atlanta - but far enough!
Posts: 9,567
Mentioned: 96 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4982 Post(s)
Liked: 3822
Quote:
Originally Posted by appelz View Post
I'm not going to speak to "best bang for the buck", but I've worked on quite a few 11-15.1.8 systems (14 Trinnov calibration this year) and I see a lot of object activity in lots of the demo content I play.
I have no doubt that it is getting better (I watch my meters a lot which causes my bride to give me one of those "looks"). But I still maintain that 7.x.4 is the sweet spot, for a reasonably sized room and one that is properly acoustically treated. .

That said, and if I could afford the massive amount of expense and work required to go to a higher speaker count, I would go to 12.x.8 (from 9.x.6). I would then have speakers every 30 degrees around the room. But I won't (extra amp; upgraded Trinnov; new speakers; additional construction).
audioguy is offline  
post #7555 of 9076 Old 06-23-2019, 12:16 PM
AVS Forum Club Gold
 
sdrucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,320
Mentioned: 53 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1658 Post(s)
Liked: 1328
Quote:
Originally Posted by appelz View Post
I'm not going to speak to "best bang for the buck", but I've worked on quite a few 11-15.1.8 systems (14 Trinnov calibration this year) and I see a lot of object activity in lots of the demo content I play.
Are those systems with the "classic" Atmos .6 and a T (VOG) and CH added, or more like the revised Dolby 11.x.8 guidelines with front/rear heights at about 20-30 degrees (150-160) elevation, and the top front/rears at more like 45-50 degrees (125-135)?

After reading some of Sanjay's (sdurani) posts on the Atmos thread, I get the feeling that the emerging trend, given how overhead objects tend to be mixed (and some tracks like Saving Private Ryan, where 90% of the overhead effect is a pair of static objects in the height level) is to move away from top middles and simply let top front/rears split the difference. If objects are properly imaged, you'll get a good phantom image about where TM would be, making the middles relatively superfluous. The exception I could see being maybe a three row theatre, where you might want the TM for stability, or someone with a 32 (or 48) channel Altitude and the channels to burn. That should more than cover Atmos and DTS:X content.

https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/11...etup-guide.pdf

Audio Gear: Trinnov Altitude 32 (24 channel), NAD M27 amps (3)
Video: JVC RS600, Seymour 100" UF Screen, Lumagen Radiance Pro 4444 (coming soon)
Speakers: PSB Imagine T3 LCR, Imagine T Wides/Side Surround 1, T2 Side Surrounds, Imagine XB rears, Image B6 screens, PSB CS1000 ceilings (6), HSU ULS-15 Mk 2 subs (4) - 13.4.6
HAA HT1 and HT2 Certification
sdrucker is offline  
post #7556 of 9076 Old 06-23-2019, 02:55 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
ss9001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: metro Atlanta
Posts: 9,307
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 653 Post(s)
Liked: 658
^^
"where 90% of the overhead effect is a pair of static objects in the height level"


Would these image to the Mids in the Altitude? It could explain why only the top mids were active in Mary Queen of Scots. I hadn't seen that before. Haven't watched 4K Saving Pvt Ryan yet.

I called Sanjay late May with a question about my ATI class D amp and he mentioned this issue. He said for him, it may not be worth putting in mids due to this. I didn't follow all his reasoning at the time but now I do since I think we experienced it with MQoS. I guess you could always turn off the mids with these types of mixes & force the fronts & rears to be used. I guess this & hard-coded 7.1.4 are symptoms of the move to streaming.

Dolby must be crawling the walls since this can't be what they intended.
Berland likes this.

Steve
ss9001 is online now  
post #7557 of 9076 Old 06-23-2019, 03:36 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
audioguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Not far from Atlanta - but far enough!
Posts: 9,567
Mentioned: 96 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4982 Post(s)
Liked: 3822
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdrucker View Post
If objects are properly imaged, you'll get a good phantom image about where TM would be, making the middles relatively superfluous.
My top front and rear speakers are about 9 feet apart. While some kind of imaging is certainly possible, I would be surprised how effective it might be. Now that I think about that, I can easily experiment with the pink noise from my Trinnov from the two sets of speakers and see how well it images.

All I know is that the center heights or top middles or whatever they are called brought some important improvement to the 3D effect in my room vs the .4 that proceeded the .6!
audioguy is offline  
post #7558 of 9076 Old 06-23-2019, 06:10 PM
AVS Forum Club Gold
 
sdrucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,320
Mentioned: 53 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1658 Post(s)
Liked: 1328
Quote:
Originally Posted by audioguy View Post
My top front and rear speakers are about 9 feet apart. While some kind of imaging is certainly possible, I would be surprised how effective it might be. Now that I think about that, I can easily experiment with the pink noise from my Trinnov from the two sets of speakers and see how well it images.

All I know is that the center heights or top middles or whatever they are called brought some important improvement to the 3D effect in my room vs the .4 that proceeded the .6!
I think the idea, if you were going to follow something like the Dolby guidelines in the link I posted, won't so much be to stop with .4, but to go to .8 and place the top fronts/rears in a way (45-50 degrees elevation, about 45/135 azimuth) along with front and rear heights (20-30 degrees elevation, about 30/150 degrees azimuth) to produce overall better overhead effects than with just .4.

I'm just going from Dolby's eight height level speakers in that 11.x.8 document and a couple of posts on the Atmos thread, as well as Adam's comments about a number of his recent clients having a .8 setup (which to be fair, could be .6 + T + CH or .4 + surround heights + T +CH, for all I know). Not saying that the Trinnov recommendation is going to agree with this, or that it's some universal best practice to not do top middles and do FH/TF/TR/RH instead. Just wondering if it's got any traction about HT moving forward.

I'm not changing my own system, which uses top middles, any time soon. If anything, if I could free up three additional channels by offloading individual subs to a Xilica, I'd be most likely to add a second pair of rears inside my existing rear surrounds to achieve something closer to the system Jon Herron mentioned as recommended to have inside the screen Lc/Rc, with matched Lrs2/Rrs2 of some sort. From there I'd probably add a center height (CH) for future formats (DTS:X Pro possibly, and DTS Enhanced if that actually rendered to a true CH). But these are really first world problems...I'd be more likely to jump further into the HAA rabbithole and redo the room altogether - if I wanted to reinvent the wheel in my own place.
appelz likes this.

Audio Gear: Trinnov Altitude 32 (24 channel), NAD M27 amps (3)
Video: JVC RS600, Seymour 100" UF Screen, Lumagen Radiance Pro 4444 (coming soon)
Speakers: PSB Imagine T3 LCR, Imagine T Wides/Side Surround 1, T2 Side Surrounds, Imagine XB rears, Image B6 screens, PSB CS1000 ceilings (6), HSU ULS-15 Mk 2 subs (4) - 13.4.6
HAA HT1 and HT2 Certification

Last edited by sdrucker; 06-24-2019 at 06:04 PM.
sdrucker is offline  
post #7559 of 9076 Old 06-24-2019, 03:46 AM
Senior Member
 
santodx5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 239
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 169 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by audioguy View Post
Start off with 7.x.4 and then move to 7.x.6, then move to 9.x.6.

Wides are still massively under utilized (as are all other speakers other than 7.x.4). For any of you who have a full 9.x.6 configuration or greater, it is VERY easy in the Trinnov to set up various configurations and test my theory. Currently, the optimum speaker count is still 7.x.4, with rapidly diminishing returns as you add more speakers. As I said, very easy to test. I'm not suggesting that more is not better, only that 7.x.4 today is still the the best "bang for the buck".



I just installed 6 overhead speaker speakers in Dolby Atmos Layout, will this work fine for Auro 3D and DTS X-10 as well?



Thanks
santodx5 is offline  
post #7560 of 9076 Old 06-24-2019, 05:53 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
audioguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Not far from Atlanta - but far enough!
Posts: 9,567
Mentioned: 96 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4982 Post(s)
Liked: 3822
Quote:
Originally Posted by santodx5 View Post
I just installed 6 overhead speaker speakers in Dolby Atmos Layout, will this work fine for Auro 3D and DTS X-10 as well?



Thanks
DTS:X? Pretty much.

Auro 3D, is a much different story. Look at the following for at least one of the recommended Auro 3D layouts and you will see how much different it is than Atmos. BUT, with the Trinnov/Remapping, and at least in my opinion, it will be more than good enough.

Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Screen Shot 2019-06-24 at 8.43.34 AM.png
Views:	175
Size:	180.8 KB
ID:	2583788  
audioguy is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Ultra Hi-End HT Gear ($20,000+)

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