The official Dolby Atmos thread (home theater version) - Page 1273 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 24978Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #38161 of 55028 Old 02-14-2016, 03:02 PM
Bass Enabler
 
Scott Simonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Clovis, CA
Posts: 21,509
Mentioned: 200 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5985 Post(s)
Liked: 5114
I expect to see some 4722's mounted up high on your ceiling by weeks end, sir.
Molon_Labe likes this.
Scott Simonian is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #38162 of 55028 Old 02-14-2016, 03:16 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
AllenA07's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 1,637
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 704 Post(s)
Liked: 579
Quote:
Originally Posted by audioguy View Post
For those of you thinking about going on the cheap for your ceiling speakers --- don't do it.

I am blessed to own a Datasat RS20i and on the home screen, there is a real time output bar graph for all channels. I noticed that on virtually all Blu rays played back with DSU, it was not at all uncommon to see the bar graphs for the ceiling speakers to show almost the same output levels as the LCR's and on a few occasions, it was even larger !!!

And on some of the scenes from the most recent Dolby Atmos demo disc, it was also common to see very large output levels (brief) when compared to other channels.

The next time I have my system on, I will try to capture some photos and identify the discs from which they came. It's a bit tricky since it moves so quickly but to say I was surprised is an understatement.
Great advice! There have been plenty of times I have tried to go cheap and a year later I'm looking to replace the component. Do it right the first time.

My Theater: The Ugly Theater
AllenA07 is offline  
post #38163 of 55028 Old 02-14-2016, 03:23 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
audioguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Not far from Atlanta - but far enough!
Posts: 9,070
Mentioned: 89 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4571 Post(s)
Liked: 3340
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter-d-w View Post
Which ceiling speakers do you have/recommend?

I am still waiting for the ultimate ceiling speakers as when I implemented Atmos in late 2014, none had the efficiency and dispersion that would also mount in a shallow box that I could cover with my ceiling treatment. But I am using very efficient speakers with an outstanding dispersion pattern - but they are fairly large and unattractive. They are Tannoy Di6 DC's. The have a mounting bracket that makes it very easy to aim at the MLP. As for matching my other speakers - they do close enough for now after room correction. As much as I would like to have an "official" Atmos speaker from Triad, I am still on the fence about their recommendation mostly because I would not be able to easily hide it - which, quite frankly, is 99.5% of the reason I want to change.

So, until the ideal speaker shows up that pushes all of my buttons, I will keep the Tannoys.

I am currently looking at the RSL C34E. Got good reviews, thin enough and good polar response/dispersion.

Last edited by audioguy; 02-15-2016 at 03:10 AM.
audioguy is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #38164 of 55028 Old 02-14-2016, 04:10 PM
Member
 
audiguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 46
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post
I explained this when you asked in the other thread. It doesn't work like that because, if height/overhead speakers are part of the config, then the object metadata is decoded and these "height" sounds are removed from the base layer speakers. If you just had some add on box doing the heights it would be all screwy because the same sounds would be coming from multiple speakers.

You need a new processor. Bottom line.
Thanks. Good news is that I have not yet bought this new processor.
audiguy is offline  
post #38165 of 55028 Old 02-14-2016, 05:14 PM
Advanced Member
 
Jahjd2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 623
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 50 Post(s)
Liked: 81
I recently upgraded my receiver to the Denon x6200. I'm running the bed speakers in my signature with 4 RSL in-ceiling speakers in a TM and TR configuration. Per the suggestion on the forums, I have it configured as TF and TR in Audyssey.

First Atmos movie I watched was Mad Max: Fury Road. Overall I thought the overhead effects were just ok. It certainly had an immersive effect (sound bubble) but I thought the overhead sound could have been utilized better.

I then watched Dawn of the Planet of the Apes up-mixed via DSU. I was really impressed. I thought DSU did a great job with the overhead effects. It was especially cool during the opening scene with the overhead rain and thunder. Very immersive.

So far I'm really liking what I'm hearing from Atmos.
tigerhonaker likes this.

Dolby Atmos 5.1.4
Denon x6200
Ascend Acoustics Towers and Horizon Center (NrT)
RSL 34CE in-ceilings (4)
Rythmik E15HP
Jahjd2000 is offline  
post #38166 of 55028 Old 02-14-2016, 05:37 PM
Member
 
apesterin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 80
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 63 Post(s)
Liked: 4
Quote:
Originally Posted by wackid View Post
It's a small box really... Most of the part is a plate. So it will fit in a ceiling tile.
My overhead pair is in a coving rather than a ceiling, about 9x4 inch cross section about 7 in below the ceiling surface. The coving only extends about an inch on two sides and depth. The only space I can play with its on the length of coving (without the enclosure, the whole coving behaves like an enclosure - about 20 feet long)
apesterin is offline  
post #38167 of 55028 Old 02-14-2016, 08:14 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
rontalley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,173
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 779 Post(s)
Liked: 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by audioguy View Post
For those of you thinking about going on the cheap for your ceiling speakers --- don't do it.

I am blessed to own a Datasat RS20i and on the home screen, there is a real time output bar graph for all channels. I noticed that on virtually all Blu rays played back with DSU, it was not at all uncommon to see the bar graphs for the ceiling speakers to show almost the same output levels as the LCR's and on a few occasions, it was even larger !!!

And on some of the scenes from the most recent Dolby Atmos demo disc, it was also common to see very large output levels (brief) when compared to other channels.

The next time I have my system on, I will try to capture some photos and identify the discs from which they came. It's a bit tricky since it moves so quickly but to say I was surprised is an understatement.
Well, I own 20+ Atmos movies and have watched many of my older movies with DSU and I have not experienced one issue with my $40 "Cheap" Micca M-8C in-ceilings. YMMV but out of all who have purchased these speakers, none that I know of have any complaints...
vitod likes this.

My Media Room
AVR 1-Yamaha RX-A3050 (7.2.4), AVR 2 Pioneer VSX-815-K(Used for 4ch Amp TF+TR)
Mains-Polk Audio RTi8, Center-Polk Audio CSi5, Surrounds-Polk Audio RTi4, Ceilings-Micca M-8C, Sub 1- UM18-22 (4cu.ft DIY) - iNuke 6000DSP Sub 2-Klipsch RW12D,
Projector-Looking, Screen-Da-Lite 100" Model B, TV-Vizio P-65 4K
rontalley is offline  
post #38168 of 55028 Old 02-14-2016, 08:23 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
vitod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Pocono, PA
Posts: 3,639
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 287 Post(s)
Liked: 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by rontalley View Post
Well, I own 20+ Atmos movies and have watched many of my older movies with DSU and I have not experienced one issue with my $40 "Cheap" Micca M-8C in-ceilings. YMMV but out of all who have purchased these speakers, none that I know of have any complaints...
+1

Panasonic AE-8000, Carada BW 120", Paradigm Studio 40v3 x 2, Paradigm 690v4, Paradigm ADP 470v3 (rears), Micca M-8C x 4, Volt 6 x 2 (SR), SI DS4-18 in 12cuft X 2, Marantz 7702MKII, OPPO 103D, Emotiva XPA-3,
vitod is offline  
post #38169 of 55028 Old 02-14-2016, 08:57 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Daniel Chaves's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: LA (Valley Village)
Posts: 1,795
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 614 Post(s)
Liked: 484
Quote:
Originally Posted by rontalley View Post
Well, I own 20+ Atmos movies and have watched many of my older movies with DSU and I have not experienced one issue with my $40 "Cheap" Micca M-8C in-ceilings. YMMV but out of all who have purchased these speakers, none that I know of have any complaints...
Im using Onkyo THX Bookshelf soeakers mounted to ceiling mounts, acting as my ceiling channels and they work great

Projector: BenQ w1500 + ES Sable 135" 16:9 Screen AVR: Marantz SR6011 ATMOS/DTSX + Unity 2ch Amp + Darbee 5000s Speakers: Polk Audio TSX550t (FL/FR), CS2 Series II (C), FXiA6 (SL/SR), Monitor40 Series II (RL/RR), TSx110B (Ceiling FL/FR RL/RR) LFE: (2) JL Audio 12" Subs + (2) Dayton 15" Subs + (2) ButtKicker LFE Arrangement: 7.1.4 Source: OPPO UDP-203 4k Bluray Player, Roku 4, HTPC, 2017 nVidia Shield, Hauppauge OTA DVR
Daniel Chaves is offline  
post #38170 of 55028 Old 02-14-2016, 10:53 PM
Advanced Member
 
wackid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 507
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 330 Post(s)
Liked: 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Chaves View Post
Im using Onkyo THX Bookshelf soeakers mounted to ceiling mounts, acting as my ceiling channels and they work great
Looks like you have a dedicated homecinema room, or you don't have a wife.

I have a WAF signed. Made a presentation on a sheet.

My plan is to make four round "islands" . With an approx diameter of 40 cm and 15cm deep. And install some ceilingspeakers. I have concrete ceilings so drilling a speaker hole is not possible.

This way the speakers will have an enclose box so the will sound better. Cover those "islands" with a nice funky color of acoustic cloth.

So I think it will look and sound great.
Daniel Chaves likes this.

Panasonic TX-P65VTW60 | Panasonic DMP-BDT500 | Asus Chromebox OpenELEC triple boot | Pioneer SC-LX89 | 6 X Monitor Audio Apex 10 | Canton Chrono SL 590 black | Klipsch R-115W | BK Sub XXLS400 | Zalman HTPC | Harmony Ultimate
wackid is offline  
post #38171 of 55028 Old 02-14-2016, 10:55 PM
Member
 
rah50's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Santa Fe, NM
Posts: 76
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 57 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by apesterin View Post
Would having them at ear height by the side walls be an option? Just like surround, just a lot more back and properly toed in towards MLP. You can put them on Wall, or stands, or freestanding if towers

Thanks apesterin:

The side wall on the right is really glass doors, so that won't work. But check out the blue locations on the drawing. They are a little asymmetrical and the speaker on the left wall might be a problem with my wife as it can't be flush but it might be a good way to go. The last thing I want to do would be stands as they would never pass the WAF.

Any other thoughts?

Thanks,

Bob
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	MediaRoom.jpg
Views:	153
Size:	108.3 KB
ID:	1253857  
rah50 is offline  
post #38172 of 55028 Old 02-15-2016, 12:18 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
audiofan1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 6,674
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2287 Post(s)
Liked: 2798
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoked21 View Post
Preaching to the choir! Cool info and I'd love to see the data. I can HEAR the bass coming from the Atmos speakers and can audibly confirm its heavy spl at times. I don't know why people have nice beds and then throw in $30-40 speakers for ICs. It just destroys everything they're trying to accomplish and degrades the quality of their bed speakers. Foolish move to go cheap on Atmos ICs. Match them with what you have on the floor, caliber and price wise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Molon_Labe View Post
I am glad someone finally recognized/validated this. I have been trying to convey that all the speakers should be treated as equals since way, way back in the thread.
I've found my ceiling speakers they are 8 inch drivers with the same tweeters as my LCR but I won't get them till later on down the road (few months) but will say the little 4.5's on -ceilings crossed @ 90hz to my subs ain't exactly slumming it even when pushing reference volume I put them there with the intent to be able to tweek final placement as there are no easy take backs cutting wholes that large in the ceiling Now that DTSX has arrived I can proceed to bring them to par with the rest of my setup
audiofan1 is offline  
post #38173 of 55028 Old 02-15-2016, 02:27 AM
Advanced Member
 
richmagnus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: St Albans , England
Posts: 514
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 309 Post(s)
Liked: 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by GXMnow View Post
If you take another look at the actualy Dolby Atmos for home speaker layout, you will see that the rendering in the home AVR does actually know 5 separate locations from front to back in the "height" layer.

As the pan data moves from front to back, these speaker positions are

very close to the front wall
about 1/4 of the way back
middle of the room
about 3/4 of the way back
very close to the back wall

Now it treats all of these as an upper layer speaker. It does not treat any of them different as they are all full range speaker outputs. But the content of the sound will vary based on where it is in the the room. I think it is odd that Dolby did change from the in room position of the cinema system, to the angle from listener in the home version, but for this setup, it is not a big difference in principle.

When a mix is made, the sound is placed in the room. I do not know if there is any re-coding of sorts, other than the packing to fit it into the True HD carrier, but once in the home, they are saying those 5 speaker placements are now in these angles, ok, we will go with that.

Assume a sound starts at the front left speaker, so 0 up angle. Now it pans up and over, doing the full 180 degree arc to straight behind you, (but still just on the left side).

If you don't have any overhead speakers, it does a smooth pan from the left front to the left back surround speaker.
Add Top Middle, and it will smoothly pan from the front to the top middle left, and then to the back left.

Does that all make sense now?

So now we can use 4 height speakers, choose any 2 of the 5 locations.
(not right next to each other in the current firmware though)

Let's go ahead and use the most accepted as best TF and TR and see how that would pan.

That same sound object still starts in the left front speaker.
As it pans up, it will start to pan into the TFL speaker, and when the pan gets to about 45 degrees, it will play from just that one speaker. As the pan continues, from 45 to 135, it will smoothly pan to the TRL speaker, and then be just in that one. And the last part of the pan will go from the TRL to the Back Left from the 135 to 180 degree position.

90 degrees of the pan stays between the 2 tops and gives very good positioning.

To go to the next most common I see mentioned, let's use FH and TM.
Now as the sound pans up, it will go from the Left Front into the FHL and get there a bit sooner. I think at 30 degrees it will already be fully in this one speaker. As the pan goes further, it will now pan to the TML speaker, and be there completely at the 90 degree point. Then it takes the last 90 degrees to pan from here to the Back Left speaker. In this setup, the sound is only between the two height channels for 60 degrees, and spends 90 degrees between the top middle and the back wall.

To me, this setup would make sense if the back wall speakers were much further back, like the same distance behind the top speaker as the front speakers are forward. If your main seating point is at the back of the room, then this does not seem like it will render correctly. By setting the speakers right above you as TM even though you are at the back of the room, you are forcing the renderer to move the sound to still place you in the middle, and then the offset of the pans does make sense.

What I still find a bit odd is that a lot of people are not liking the result of using FH and RH. That would place the sound panning between the 2 top speakers for 120 degrees of the pan. With just 30 out each end down to the front main or back wall speakers. The "loss of separation" is not really less separation, it is the fact that a sound that was at the TF or TR is now in the pan between these further spread speakers.

What I think the "Dolby Guy" was trying to say about the "indistinguishable difference" between using TF, TR ar FH, RH was that if you have the speakers labeled as the position they are actually in, both setups should result in the same, virtually indistinguishable sound field as objects move around the room. And that is the ideal goal. If the 4 speakers are all closed to evenly spaced, then the TF, TR will be the most correct. The your front height is closer to the front, then call it "Height Front", and if the back height, is closer to the back, call it "Height Rear". And if there is a pair of top speakers in the middle of the room, then they should be TM and the sound will pass them as the 90 degree up half way back in the room point of a pan.

And if you have the Trinnov, you can use all 5 positions, and it will pan from the Front, to the FH, then the TF, then TM, then TR, onto RH, and finally to the BS. I do not know the exact angles and all, but basically, with all 5, it looks like it could be a speaker at each 30 degrees of the pan.
So 0=Front, 30=HF, 60=TF, 90=TM, 120=TR, 150=RH, and 180=BS.

All 5 are "treated the same" but render a different portion of the overhead arc.

It seems some of the test tones on the demo disks may or may not have the snap to closest speaker set. And this may even be different on the run of the disks. This will certainly effect where the single non moving sound comes from. Since the sound is an object, if it is not at the true location of a speaker in the system, it will either pan between the nearest ones, or jump directly to the closest single one. I hope snap off becomes the default, because knowing how it will render a panned position seems to be the more important part of the equation.

I will report back if I can get any more test time on the X5200 with that test demo/test disk

This is exactly what the Dolby guy was explaining to me. Dolby state that TF/TR speakers placed on/in the ceiling are best for the immersive effect. If you have a processor that can accommodate more, then one can add FH/RH for an additional immersive effect. The FH/RH also have to fall into certain angles to work optimally.
Denon allow for a FH/RH placement. If these are used the info sent to them is not going to sound particularly different to TF/TR as it all falls into the angle spec. It's down to the manufacturer to implement how it works. The info sent to FH/RH and FT/RT will be slightly different, but only marginally, hence virtually indistinguishable at MLP. It will be the position of the speakers that makes the difference.

My FH/RH fall into TF/TR angles but I label as FH/RH to allow for Auro use. I can detect no difference between the two.

If one used say an Arcam which allows TF/TR designations only and one were to place speakers in FH/RH location within spec it would work too.

I'd did not ask about TM.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
richmagnus is offline  
post #38174 of 55028 Old 02-15-2016, 03:03 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
audioguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Not far from Atlanta - but far enough!
Posts: 9,070
Mentioned: 89 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4571 Post(s)
Liked: 3340
Quote:
Originally Posted by rontalley View Post
Well, I own 20+ Atmos movies and have watched many of my older movies with DSU and I have not experienced one issue with my $40 "Cheap" Micca M-8C in-ceilings. YMMV but out of all who have purchased these speakers, none that I know of have any complaints...
Fair enough. What I should have said is the that ceiling speakers must have enough efficiency and power handling to keep up with the mains without distorting. If the speakers you pointed to can do that, then good for you.
audioguy is offline  
post #38175 of 55028 Old 02-15-2016, 03:27 AM
Member
 
pletwals's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 181
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 94 Post(s)
Liked: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by audioguy View Post
For those of you thinking about using ceiling speakers that can't keep up with the mains [appropriate power handling, efficiency, distortion figures] --- don't do it.

I am blessed to own a Datasat RS20i and on the home screen, there is a real time output bar graph for all channels. I noticed that on virtually all Blu rays played back with DSU, it was not at all uncommon to see the bar graphs for the ceiling speakers to show almost the same output levels as the LCR's and on a few occasions, it was even larger !!!
How about the efficiency of the ceiling speakers compared to LCR? If there is a 5 dB difference in favour of the LCR, the ceiling speakers will sound 5 dB less loud with the same amount of output.

It's the room, stupid!
pletwals is offline  
post #38176 of 55028 Old 02-15-2016, 03:41 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
audioguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Not far from Atlanta - but far enough!
Posts: 9,070
Mentioned: 89 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4571 Post(s)
Liked: 3340
Quote:
Originally Posted by pletwals View Post
How about the efficiency of the ceiling speakers compared to LCR? If there is a 5 dB difference in favour of the LCR, the ceiling speakers will sound 5 dB less loud with the same amount of output.
What is important is that (even if the ceiling speakers are less efficient than the efficiency of the LCR's) i they can match or exceed the output capability of the LCR's driven by an appropriate amp with low distortion. If the ceiling amp needs to have more power than the LCR amp, than so be it.

The point I was trying to make was that I was very surprised that the ceiling speakers got the kind of SPL level that they did. PLAN ACCORDINGLY !!!!!!
Stoked21 likes this.

Last edited by audioguy; 02-15-2016 at 03:49 AM.
audioguy is offline  
post #38177 of 55028 Old 02-15-2016, 04:51 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Nalleh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Norway
Posts: 3,453
Mentioned: 274 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2404 Post(s)
Liked: 3133
More Atmos testing, this time test tones

So, i finally got a hold of the sep 2015 Dolby demo disc to test it out.

And i am glad to say the 9.1.6 test tones work as they should in my dual AVR SETUP.

Top front test tone phantomed between my front height an top fronts,
Top middle test toned phantomed in the middle on both AVR's.
And top rear test tones phantomed between my top rear and rear heights.

I tried two setups:
AVR 1 as FH+TM, AVR2 as TF+TR, or total setup FH+TF+TM+TR.
All heights within Atmos specs.

The other one, in order to have one shared setup for all three formats :
AVR 1 as FH+RH, AVR 2 as TF+TR, or total setup FH+TF+TR+RH.
I did not move any speakers here, just reassigned them, so FH and TF within specs, but TR is at TM position and RH is at TR position.

However both setups worked very well, and had very little difference in content placement.

A couple of strange things about the test tones.
With just one AVR, and it setup as 7.1.4, when playing the 5.1.2 or 5.1.4 test tones, the side surround test tones came from my surround backs, and only from them!! I thought they should come from the side surrounds only?

When disabling surround backs, to gain wides, e.g 7.1.4 no SB+FW, the front wide test tone came frome the correct place=wides.
But the side surround test tones got divided between the wides and side surround!?!
And the surround back test tone this time came from the side surround only, wich is correct.

Regarding the FH+RH vs TF+TR content question, for those who have this demo disc, try the following:
Setup your AVR as 7.1.4 and FH+RH.
Disconnect/ mute your height2 speakers, so only your height1 is playing.
Play the helicopter demo track.
When the sound goes from your left front height, it fades down as it moves to your left rear height, but before it goes silent, you already hear it fading up in your right front height. No pause!

Now change your AVR setup to 7.1.4 and TF+TR, without moving any speakers or anything, and play the same track.
When the sound goes from your left top front, it fades down as it goes to your left top rear. But this time it stays silent for about 5 sec, before it fades up in your right top front.
Clearly a difference in the way it pans, depending on your speaker assigment.
And it confirms what has been said in earlier tests, with your setup as FH+RH, it phantoms to where your "TF+TR should be", while setup as TF+TR, sounds come directly from those speakers.

This means if you assign them as FH+RH, but mount them as TF+TR, the pans will be more narrow, more in between the two speaker sets.
jpco likes this.

Dual Atmos Receivers - Atmos 13.1.8/DTS X 9.1.8/Auro 3D 13.1 - Denon AVCX8500H+AVRX7200WA - Klipsch+KEF - 6xSI18" - 8xJBL 12" BOSS - 4xJBL 12" w/SLAPS M12" VNF - 3x2 stacked Crowson MA - 4xBK-LFE - 6xNU6K(fan&trig mod) - Minidsp 10x10HD - Oppo UDP203 - XBox OneX - Apple TV4K - JVC RS600 Dreamscreen V2 120"- Philips 65OLED873.
Nalleh’s HT
Nalleh is online now  
post #38178 of 55028 Old 02-15-2016, 06:10 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
maikeldepotter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 1,838
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1451 Post(s)
Liked: 510
At ISE I attended an Atmos demonstration at the Dolby booth hosted by Craig Eggers, (Senior Director, Home Theater Marketing, Dolby Laboratories). Below are my impressions of the Yamaha Soundbar and the Dolby enabled speakers (PSB Imagine XA). During the demo there was multiple switching between in-ceiling speakers and soundbar or upfiring speakers.

Yamaha Soundbar + Subwoofer
In the relatively small Dolby demo room with me sitting at MLP, the first impression was that this combo performed surprisingly well. Especially the side surround imaging was convincing. Sounds meant to be overhead where perceptually clearly elevated, but not really right above me like they were with the in-ceiling speakers (more like they coming from elevated surrounds). Rear imaging (both at ear height and elevated) was virtually absent though.

Dolby enabled speakers (up-firing)
For me this was the first time to hear Dolby enabled speakers. First impression: Hey, this really works! Higher pitched overhead sounds (like bird chirping sounds) remained clearly defined and really above you, especially when there was reverb added to them like in the last clip showing bouncing balls making music (this could be a psycho-acoustical effect enforcing the illusion of sound coming from above). With the helicopter flying overhead though, the sound was noticeably less defined and less powerful.
whitetrash66 likes this.

A good idea and understanding lies at the base of every successful project.

Last edited by maikeldepotter; 02-15-2016 at 06:14 AM.
maikeldepotter is online now  
post #38179 of 55028 Old 02-15-2016, 06:55 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
aaranddeeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lover's State
Posts: 4,079
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1874 Post(s)
Liked: 675
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nalleh View Post
More Atmos testing, this time test tones


This means if you assign them as FH+RH, but mount them as TF+TR, the pans will be more narrow, more in between the two speaker sets.

But I believe this is only for the sounds that were designated to the TF, TR positions.

so IMHO
- If the sound were actually panning from FH back to RH, (but your speakers are positioned at TF/TR angles), there should be no issue
- also if your speakers are positioned at FH+RH angles and also designated as FH+RH in AVR, it should give the widest pan as it will fantom for TF+TR
- however if your speakers are designated as TF+TR in AVR (irrespective of their actual angles), you are losing on the sound that is designated for FH+RH as there is no way to fantom that
aaranddeeman is offline  
post #38180 of 55028 Old 02-15-2016, 07:38 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Daniel Chaves's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: LA (Valley Village)
Posts: 1,795
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 614 Post(s)
Liked: 484
Quote:
Originally Posted by wackid View Post
Looks like you have a dedicated homecinema room, or you don't have a wife.

I have a WAF signed. Made a presentation on a sheet.

My plan is to make four round "islands" . With an approx diameter of 40 cm and 15cm deep. And install some ceilingspeakers. I have concrete ceilings so drilling a speaker hole is not possible.

This way the speakers will have an enclose box so the will sound better. Cover those "islands" with a nice funky color of acoustic cloth.

So I think it will look and sound great.
No wife and semi-dedicated home theater room, but anyone I date there is the condition that no matter what stage of the relationship or it goes into marriage, I will have my home theater, everything else is negotiable lol...
zapper, wackid, stikle and 1 others like this.

Projector: BenQ w1500 + ES Sable 135" 16:9 Screen AVR: Marantz SR6011 ATMOS/DTSX + Unity 2ch Amp + Darbee 5000s Speakers: Polk Audio TSX550t (FL/FR), CS2 Series II (C), FXiA6 (SL/SR), Monitor40 Series II (RL/RR), TSx110B (Ceiling FL/FR RL/RR) LFE: (2) JL Audio 12" Subs + (2) Dayton 15" Subs + (2) ButtKicker LFE Arrangement: 7.1.4 Source: OPPO UDP-203 4k Bluray Player, Roku 4, HTPC, 2017 nVidia Shield, Hauppauge OTA DVR
Daniel Chaves is offline  
post #38181 of 55028 Old 02-15-2016, 08:04 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Nalleh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Norway
Posts: 3,453
Mentioned: 274 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2404 Post(s)
Liked: 3133
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaranddeeman View Post
- also if your speakers are positioned at FH+RH angles and also designated as FH+RH in AVR, it should give the widest pan as it will fantom for TF+TR


This is exactly why they will pan narrower when you mount them in TF+TR positions. Remember, the AVR still thinks it has FH+RH. It will not start a TF pan where the speaker is actually mounted, but more in between them.

Dual Atmos Receivers - Atmos 13.1.8/DTS X 9.1.8/Auro 3D 13.1 - Denon AVCX8500H+AVRX7200WA - Klipsch+KEF - 6xSI18" - 8xJBL 12" BOSS - 4xJBL 12" w/SLAPS M12" VNF - 3x2 stacked Crowson MA - 4xBK-LFE - 6xNU6K(fan&trig mod) - Minidsp 10x10HD - Oppo UDP203 - XBox OneX - Apple TV4K - JVC RS600 Dreamscreen V2 120"- Philips 65OLED873.
Nalleh’s HT
Nalleh is online now  
post #38182 of 55028 Old 02-15-2016, 08:09 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
vitod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Pocono, PA
Posts: 3,639
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 287 Post(s)
Liked: 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by pletwals View Post
How about the efficiency of the ceiling speakers compared to LCR? If there is a 5 dB difference in favour of the LCR, the ceiling speakers will sound 5 dB less loud with the same amount of output.
What people should be reminded is that ceiling speakers are usually crossed at 80hz and above. They are for EFFECT. They're not handling the deep, heavy stuff. That's what subs are for. The LCR and all the surrounds are usually set to small anyway. As for efficiency, most IC speakers I've seen are at least 89db. The Miccas are 90db and power handling is 100w. So, it's plenty. In my case, they match the Paradigms perfectly.

Panasonic AE-8000, Carada BW 120", Paradigm Studio 40v3 x 2, Paradigm 690v4, Paradigm ADP 470v3 (rears), Micca M-8C x 4, Volt 6 x 2 (SR), SI DS4-18 in 12cuft X 2, Marantz 7702MKII, OPPO 103D, Emotiva XPA-3,
vitod is offline  
post #38183 of 55028 Old 02-15-2016, 08:19 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
stikle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The Sovereign State of Eastern Oregon
Posts: 1,529
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 946 Post(s)
Liked: 1111
Well, I found myself with plenty of time to kill this weekend, so just for shiggles (stole that from another post, but it's awesome), I dropped all of my surrounds by another foot. Which is exactly where they're going to stay. I thought my theater sounded great before, but now...wow. The extra separation between the bed & heights made a HUGE difference. Even though the Mirages are wide dispersion and at the proper height and mounted properly, it didn't end up being quite enough.

Who knew that one foot was all it was going to take to catapult my audio experience into Teh Awesome?

It'll be well worth the time to reSpackle, texture, and paint the old speaker wire holes. Easy peasy for a big payoff.
thebland, Bigham16 and grtuck like this.
stikle is offline  
post #38184 of 55028 Old 02-15-2016, 08:52 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
DLCPhoto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Mooresville, NC
Posts: 2,355
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1560 Post(s)
Liked: 693
Finalizing Speaker Placement

I'm still in the planning stages of converting my current audio-only room to an Atmos audio-visual system.

Room specs:

20' wide x 32' long, with the screen to be on the 20' wall.
Listening position about 15' from that front wall.
Walls about 8 1/2" high at the sides, but with a vaulted ceiling 12' 6" high, running along the length of the room, with 3 horizontal beams across the width, placed at 8', 16', 24' from the front, respectively.

I have a 3D Model using free software from Sweet Home 3D, which is the best way of seeing the room, placement of speakers, etc. The file containing my specs can be downloaded here. This is the best way to visualize the room.

(And on this subject, this is perhaps an ideal way to design and share specs for these rooms, as verbal descriptions, and even 2D drawings can be imprecise and cumbersome.)

I will have Top Front and Top Rear Atmos speakers (most likely Polk OWM5's) mounted from the beam 8' from the front, and the beam 24' from the front (7' in front of the MLP and 9' in back of the MLP), at a height of about 102" from the floor, 60" above the ear position of 42". If my calculations are right, that gives me 30 degree TF (30-55 recommended) and 154 degrees TR (125-150 recommended). Reasonably close to the recommended angles.

I have no flexibility on moving the distance of the speakers from front to back, but can put them anywhere I want on the beams, in terms of the side-to-side dimension.

First question: is there any recommendation on horizontal placement of the Atmos speakers, relative to other speakers in the base level, or is it just a matter of getting the angles as close as possible to Dolby recommendations?

For Front Right/Left, I have fairly massive Duntech Sovereigns (with a JBL LSR-308 Powered Studio Monitor for the Center Channel). The horizontal position of these gives me about 28 degrees (recommended is 22 to 30) from MLP.

For the 4 Dolby Surrounds, I have older Wharfedale Diamond II's. The side ones can be readily placed at ear-height (42"), and pretty much at 90 degrees to the MLP.

The Rear Surrounds are more problematic due to room/furniture limitations. I can have them at the same width of the Duntech's, but much higher in in the room (86" from the floor, about 1 foot from the back wall).

Or I can put them at the same 42" ear-height as the sides, and about 2 feet from the back wall, but these would be closer to the center than the Duntech's (6' from the side walls for the surrounds, vs 4' from the walls for the Duntech's. This would give me about 165 degree placement (recommended 135 to 150).

Second Question: which of these 2 rear Dolby speaker configurations would be preferred: the higher, wider, closer to the back wall option, or the lower, narrower, a little further from the back wall configuration?

Third Question: In either case, the Dolby rears are about 15 feet back from the MLP. How much will this impact the overall experience?

Any other recommendations on how to achieve a better result is always welcome. Like they say, measure twice cut once.

Here are some 2D images if you don't want to deal with the 3D application:






JVC RS400, Marantz SR7010, Screen Innovations 160" 2.35:1 Screen
Front L/R: Duntech Sovereigns, powered by 2 bridged Adcom GFA-555
Center: Revel C208 powered by Cambridge Audio Azur 851W
Dolby Bed (4): Sony Core SS-CS5, Atmos (4): Ascend Acoustics CBM-170 SE
Subwoofer: DIY 8' sub with 4 18" SI Drivers, powered by iNuke 6000
DLCPhoto is online now  
post #38185 of 55028 Old 02-15-2016, 09:08 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
ALtlOff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: St. Louis Mo "ish"
Posts: 3,349
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1447 Post(s)
Liked: 815
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nalleh View Post
[/B]

This is exactly why they will pan narrower when you mount them in TF+TR positions. Remember, the AVR still thinks it has FH+RH. It will not start a TF pan where the speaker is actually mounted, but more in between them.
This it's what I've been speaking of when saying that it felt like I was getting extra forward and rear extension of overhead panning sounds (flyovers esp.) when using FH/RH as opposed to TF/TR, but TF/TR will tend to give you a more immersive/accurate effect for more stationary overhead sounds.
Honestly this may just be one of those things where it may be beneficial to just switch settings depending on the content.
But... in my case, once I can get a viable solution for TM (multi AVR, x.x.6 setup).then I could see what they would make up for anything that might be lacking for overhead and just stick with with FH/RH for the extension.
Nalleh likes this.

*Warning* None of my suggestions, ideas or even thoughts have any WAF, in any way!
My Build Thread:
https://www.avsforum.com/forum/15-gen...formation.html
ALtlOff is offline  
post #38186 of 55028 Old 02-15-2016, 09:11 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
aaranddeeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lover's State
Posts: 4,079
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1874 Post(s)
Liked: 675
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nalleh View Post

This is exactly why they will pan narrower when you mount them in TF+TR positions. Remember, the AVR still thinks it has FH+RH. It will not start a TF pan where the speaker is actually mounted, but more in between them.
So in a nutshell, it looks like this


In AVR : FH+RH
Ceiling position : FH+RH
Result : Good (Fantoms for TF+TR as needed)

In AVR : FH+RH
Ceiling position : TF+TR
Result : Narrow Pan

In AVR : TF+TR
Ceiling position : TF+TR
Result : Good (but with loss of sound designated for FH+RH as no fantom possible)

In AVR : TF+TR
Ceiling position : FH+RH
Result : Wider Pan (but with loss of sound designated for FH+RH as no fantom possible)
aaranddeeman is offline  
post #38187 of 55028 Old 02-15-2016, 09:16 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Nalleh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Norway
Posts: 3,453
Mentioned: 274 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2404 Post(s)
Liked: 3133
^^^^ Agreed

Dual Atmos Receivers - Atmos 13.1.8/DTS X 9.1.8/Auro 3D 13.1 - Denon AVCX8500H+AVRX7200WA - Klipsch+KEF - 6xSI18" - 8xJBL 12" BOSS - 4xJBL 12" w/SLAPS M12" VNF - 3x2 stacked Crowson MA - 4xBK-LFE - 6xNU6K(fan&trig mod) - Minidsp 10x10HD - Oppo UDP203 - XBox OneX - Apple TV4K - JVC RS600 Dreamscreen V2 120"- Philips 65OLED873.
Nalleh’s HT
Nalleh is online now  
post #38188 of 55028 Old 02-15-2016, 09:53 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
rontalley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,173
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 779 Post(s)
Liked: 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaranddeeman View Post
But I believe this is only for the sounds that were designated to the TF, TR positions.

so IMHO
- If the sound were actually panning from FH back to RH, (but your speakers are positioned at TF/TR angles), there should be no issue
- also if your speakers are positioned at FH+RH angles and also designated as FH+RH in AVR, it should give the widest pan as it will fantom for TF+TR
- however if your speakers are designated as TF+TR in AVR (irrespective of their actual angles), you are losing on the sound that is designated for FH+RH as there is no way to fantom that
FH and RH designations in AVR are intended for long rooms where the angle from MLP is around 30 degrees or less. So, if you have FH+RH and they fall into the correct angles, they would give the SAME separation as TF+TR. Since all sounds that would be aimed at FH or RH would play at 100% for FH+RH AND TF+TR. That is why Dolby has always stated that FH+RH can be used in "Conjunction" with TF+TR. Having FH+RH in a long room with no Tops will not give you a true overhead experience. At least not compared to TF+TR at the recommended 45 degree angle from MLP.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Nalleh View Post
[/B]
This is exactly why they will pan narrower when you mount them in TF+TR positions. Remember, the AVR still thinks it has FH+RH. It will not start a TF pan where the speaker is actually mounted, but more in between them.
@Nalleh was the first to test this stuff out. I was initially in the opposing camp but I verified his findings for myself and his test has proven to be valid and accurate.

Again, this is not a Yamaha thing. It has been proven over and over again that if you mount FH or RH, for convenience or you just can't install in/on ceiling, in TF or TR angles then your image will shrink when AVR is playing TF and/or TR sounds. Sounds directed towards TF and/or TR are anywhere from ~>30 degrees and/or ~<55 degrees from MLP either way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ALtlOff View Post
This it's what I've been speaking of when saying that it felt like I was getting extra forward and rear extension of overhead panning sounds (flyovers esp.) when using FH/RH as opposed to TF/TR, but TF/TR will tend to give you a more immersive/accurate effect for more stationary overhead sounds.
Honestly this may just be one of those things where it may be beneficial to just switch settings depending on the content.
But... in my case, once I can get a viable solution for TM (multi AVR, x.x.6 setup).then I could see what they would make up for anything that might be lacking for overhead and just stick with with FH/RH for the extension.
All in all it really depends on MLP. If your "wall mounted" speaker are way in front then you might want to designate FH to push the sound more toward MLP. If your MLP is against the back wall then you wouldn't want to designate your rear speakers as RH as that will push rear sounds more toward the front.

TF/TR will ALWAYS play FH/RH sounds at 100%
FH/RH will ALWAYS play TF/TR sounds at 75%:25%
FH pushes "most" sounds towards the rear
RH pushes "most" sounds towards the front

Scatmos (.6) will work the best with TF+TR as this will give maximum separation for ALL sounds.

My Media Room
AVR 1-Yamaha RX-A3050 (7.2.4), AVR 2 Pioneer VSX-815-K(Used for 4ch Amp TF+TR)
Mains-Polk Audio RTi8, Center-Polk Audio CSi5, Surrounds-Polk Audio RTi4, Ceilings-Micca M-8C, Sub 1- UM18-22 (4cu.ft DIY) - iNuke 6000DSP Sub 2-Klipsch RW12D,
Projector-Looking, Screen-Da-Lite 100" Model B, TV-Vizio P-65 4K
rontalley is offline  
post #38189 of 55028 Old 02-15-2016, 10:13 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
rontalley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,173
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 779 Post(s)
Liked: 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaranddeeman View Post
So in a nutshell, it looks like this

In AVR : FH+RH
Ceiling position : FH+RH
Result : Good (Fantoms for TF+TR as needed)

In AVR : FH+RH
Ceiling position : TF+TR
Result : Narrow Pan

In AVR : TF+TR
Ceiling position : TF+TR
Result : Good (but with loss of sound designated for FH+RH as no fantom possible)

In AVR : TF+TR
Ceiling position : FH+RH
Result : Wider Pan (but with loss of sound designated for FH+RH as no fantom possible)

In AVR : FH+RH
(Ceiling or Wall) position : FH+RH
Result : Good (Fantoms for TF+TR as needed)
This assumes a long room where Ceiling or Wall is close to or exceeds the minimum Dolby Recommended Angles.

In AVR : FH+RH
(Ceiling or Wall) position : TF+TR
Result : Narrow Pan
Agreed

In AVR : TF+TR
(Ceiling or Wall) position : TF+TR
Result : Good (but with loss of sound designated for FH+RH as no fantom possible)
Depends on your room length. If your TF+TR fall within Dolby Recommended Angles and still puts them close to the Front and or Back wall then FH and/or RH sounds will play 100% out of TF and/or TR with no loss of sound designation.

In AVR : TF+TR
(Ceiling or Wall) position : FH+RH
Result : Wider Pan (but with loss of sound designated for FH+RH as no fantom possible)
Depends on your room length. If your FH+RH fall within Dolby Recommended Angles for TF+TR but still puts them close to the Front and or Back wall then FH and/or RH AND TF and/or TR sounds will play 100% out of FH and/or RH with no loss of sound designation.


It is important to define position because many are getting confused with angles vs position. You can have the position of FH but still can be considered TF because it falls into the correct angle.

My Media Room
AVR 1-Yamaha RX-A3050 (7.2.4), AVR 2 Pioneer VSX-815-K(Used for 4ch Amp TF+TR)
Mains-Polk Audio RTi8, Center-Polk Audio CSi5, Surrounds-Polk Audio RTi4, Ceilings-Micca M-8C, Sub 1- UM18-22 (4cu.ft DIY) - iNuke 6000DSP Sub 2-Klipsch RW12D,
Projector-Looking, Screen-Da-Lite 100" Model B, TV-Vizio P-65 4K
rontalley is offline  
post #38190 of 55028 Old 02-15-2016, 10:25 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
aaranddeeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lover's State
Posts: 4,079
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1874 Post(s)
Liked: 675
Quote:
Originally Posted by rontalley View Post
In AVR : FH+RH
(Ceiling or Wall) position : FH+RH
Result : Good (Fantoms for TF+TR as needed)
This assumes a long room where Ceiling or Wall is close to or exceeds the minimum Dolby Recommended Angles.

In AVR : FH+RH
(Ceiling or Wall) position : TF+TR
Result : Narrow Pan
Agreed

In AVR : TF+TR
(Ceiling or Wall) position : TF+TR
Result : Good (but with loss of sound designated for FH+RH as no fantom possible)
Depends on your room length. If your TF+TR fall within Dolby Recommended Angles and still puts them close to the Front and or Back wall then FH and/or RH sounds will play 100% out of TF and/or TR with no loss of sound designation.

In AVR : TF+TR
(Ceiling or Wall) position : FH+RH
Result : Wider Pan (but with loss of sound designated for FH+RH as no fantom possible)
Depends on your room length. If your FH+RH fall within Dolby Recommended Angles for TF+TR but still puts them close to the Front and or Back wall then FH and/or RH AND TF and/or TR sounds will play 100% out of FH and/or RH with no loss of sound designation.


It is important to define position because many are getting confused with angles vs position. You can have the position of FH but still can be considered TF because it falls into the correct angle.


When I designate the position as FH+RH, I have the angles as 36 degree for the fronts and 140 degree for the rears. (And the speakers are on ceiling and not on the wall. Room length being 212 inches and ceiling height 92 inch. Ear height 34 inch)
I was going by the assumption that if I set them FH+RH is AVR, it will
- Play maximum sounds for FH and RH and fantom for TF+TR (and TM)
- Work around the DTS:X bug that causes TF+TR to lose stereo (Yes I know there is no much content at this stage)
aaranddeeman is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Receivers, Amps, and Processors

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