Originally Posted by ss9001
Now to Stu's post about possibly using dual side surrounds to split the angle between sides and rears - Lrs2, Rrs2. I have them since they were a hold-over from my Pioneer Elites which could have an A & B set of side surrounds. Meters showed no activity during the entire movie. With extras, with Dolby upmixer on top of 5.1 Dolby Digital, all speakers were used, incl the rearward surrounds so it's definitely the "fault" of the Atmos mix.
Not quite - what I was actually thinking of doing was using Lrs/Rrs2, not Ls2/Rs2. Lrs2/Rrs2 is a location between 150 and 165 degrees on the Dolby guidelines, inside the angle formed by Lrs/Rrs (135 to 150 degrees). These speakers would be placed to bisect the difference between the standard rear surrounds. Alternatively I could utilize Lcs/Rcs at 165 degrees.
However, the only reason for me to do so in my room would be to parallel, on the opposite front wall, the Lc/Rc at 15-20 degrees, as per the comment Jon Herron made in the WSR review about a special case where a single row HT would be recommended to use five screen speakers (counting Lc/Rc) rather than three. Trinnov has its own placement recommendations outside of Dolby, of course, depending on narrow vs. wide screen (which is really room dependent), number of rows and number of seats, as well as accounting for elevation angle in a multi-row theatre.
Frankly, it's overkill, and only usable for content at the moment where you a) have Atmos object passthrough in those locations and/or b) the DSU upmixer where you could copy the rears at a lower level and/or suitable delay. I think that as long as you avoid having a single center rear surround speaker at 180 degrees you'd avoid the ventriloquist effect where the sound directly behind MLP is thought to be in front rather than behind the listener, which would contaminate the front soundstage.
I could test this on some of my content - it's easy enough to temporarily repurpose my Ls1/Rs1 and Ls/Rs as Ls/Rs and Lrs/Rrs for test purposes ONLY, and repurpose my existing Lrs/Rrs as Ls2/Rs2 just to see if there's any object passthrough there measured on object movement-rich movies like Gravity, The House with a Clock on Its Walls, and maybe Black Hawk Down on the Input meters. But I'd have to add the physical speakers in the right locations and pick up a Xilica or (ugh) MiniDSP to handle the individual subs that right now are using up three Altitude channels for actual listening. Not sure that's worth the trouble compared to adding a CH speaker up front for future planning (DTS:X Pro depending on how it ultimately uses > 11 channels in practical terms, leaving native Auro out of it).
Steve: did you actually have a configuration where you are using Lrs/Rrs2 with Atmos along with the bed Ls/Rs?
So another Atmos title that under-utilizes high-channel count systems.
I think Chuck is right - the sweet spot is 7.x.4. No reason not to install additional speakers just be aware some studios seem hellbent to "simplify" Atmos to fixed channels and/or few objects.
I don't agree. That may be the common denominator for a typical Atmos mix and today's DTS:X "baked in" mixes, but why design a room around a common denominator when there IS content that goes well beyond that, as I've found on some of my testing? And who knows what the future will portend for upmixers making more use of existing mixes for additional channels. I'd plan for that rather than just settle for 7.x.4 because some studios (Disney, some other releases like SPR) think that way?