Originally Posted by Stoked21
Not sure what's being questioned here? Statement was that Yamaha has the worst nomenclature (Presence?). Not that Yamaha does not use the same dolby processing, which they do. Obviously Yamaha D&M and everyone else use the same angles as well; these are Dolby specifications not specs by AVR vendors.
As for TM. No they are different and their own independent pairs. Different delays and I'm sure other things as well. Plus TM is indeed part of the dolby spec. It should be a specific part of the metadata stream for object rendering.
FH/RH are different speakers than TF and TR in the dolby spec as well. But no where in the dolby papers is "presence" listed. Somehow Yamaha decided to take TF/FH and TR/RH (discretely different speaker pairs per Dolby) and group them into their own made-up category of Presence. Albeit, they do allow for the discrimination in their GUI by selecting the placement of the particular "presence" speaker. If you refer to the papers, you will see these are all different speakers per Dolby. D&M keeps them discretely labeled per Dolby guidelines.
Is this an academic discussing? yes because we can't support them all simultaneously anyway. But WHEN they can be supported, Yamaha will have to redo all of their labeling to fall in-line with specifications.
Just to be clear, I love Yamaha product. I only own 2 of their AVRs now instead of 3, but I still think they make a great AVR. This is not a bash on Yamaha. It is gripe about their nomenclature, which someone else brought up.
EDIT: FYI in the Dolby guidelines, Page 33 "additional speaker placement guidelines" is the starting discussion for Dolby Height speakers. TM is covered in section 3 of the standard x.x.2 diagrams. Same angles as listed in the D&M pic, obviously.
Presence or height, it really doesn't matter too much to me. However, the original statement that Yamaha was off-base by calling them Presence speakers, and then also that they were somehow behind the curve when it comes to implementing Atmos, was what I was disputing.
We might be talking around in circles, but I think the latter detail is worth hashing out nonetheless. Figure 14 on Page 22 of the Dolby Atmos Guidelines
shows a 7.1.4 configuration. The angles for the front pair of speakers is 30-55°, and the angles for the rear pair are 125-150°. The only time that Top Middle (TM) comes into play in that document is for a x.x.2 configuration, where only one pair of speakers overhead is used.
Now, I realize that Atmos for the home is capable of having up to five pairs of overhead speakers, which is what is shown in Figure 1 on Page 4, but that is what the technology allows, not how it's been implemented in consumer-grade (non-Trinnov level) equipment at this time. We have the choice of two overhead pairs or one overhead pair. Dolby's document shows the placement for each, and when two pair are being used, TM isn't shown as an option.
In my understanding, that leaves us with two options for how D+M have implement Dolby Atmos for the home
- Decoding changes based on whether FH, TF, or TM (and likewise RH, TR, and TM) is chosen. For example, if FH and TM is chosen, the processor decodes for the front-most and middle position in the 10-speaker layout, but if TF and TR are chosen, the processor chooses the second position from the front and back.
- Decoding is the same for FH, TF, and TM in a x.x.4 configuration where RH or TR positions are chosen for the rear pair. Regardless if FH or TF is chosen, the processor uses only one of the two front-most positions in the 10-speaker layout for decoding.
would mean that D+M's implementation of Atmos is more sophisticated than Yamaha's, because of the greater placement resolution. However, given that D+M's angles for FH and TF overlap, I'm not thinking that this is the case, because if you had the front pair at 40°, you could label them as TF and be within D+M guidelines, even though it would likely make more sense to label them as FH.
would mean that D+M's decoding would be the same as a Yamaha processor. In a x.x.4 configuration, I could place the front pair at 40° and specify them at the Front Overhead Presence position, and the decoding would be the same as if I was using a D+M processor and labeled them as either FH or TF.
I wish I could find the post that was written (I think by
?) where they tried the different rear positions (RH, TR, and TM) in a x.x.4 and found very little (if any) difference between them.
It may not be possible to know the answer to this for sure without someone from Dolby saying so or a rigorous test setup that would allow a pan from front to rear to be analyzed closely to see what's going on.
I find it difficult to believe that these two companies are using drastically different DSP code when it comes to speaker placements. However, I'm willing to proven wrong, as it might affect my choice between a Denon and a Yamaha receiver.