The official Dolby Atmos thread (home theater version) - Page 1637 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 24599Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #49081 of 54474 Old 04-05-2018, 09:02 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bkeeler10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Woods Cross, Utah
Posts: 1,016
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 451 Post(s)
Liked: 291
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post
Yes, back in this (Atmos) thread somewhere, Scott Simonian and Nalleh proposed a 'Scatmos' system (Scott's name for it IIRC) but I think his objective was different to that of JRock3x8. Maybe Scott and Nalleh's ideas could be adapted into a solution using two Onkyo 656 AVRs. TBH I can't see how it would work personally, but that's not to say it won't work of course Scott and Nalleh were primarily concerned with creating a 7.x.6 system and were starting with higher-end 7.x.4 AVRs to begin with.

If it is possible to use two cheap 5.x.2 AVRs to create an Atmos 7.x.6 system which functions in the way Dolby intended Atmos to work, then that extends Scott/Nalleh's original concept nicely.

I think it is beyond the scope of the current thread, so maybe the one you linked to is the place for this sort of discussion?
On th assumption that 5.x.2 receivers only have the top middle speaker designation (?), it seems proper 7.1.4 or 5.1.4 would not be possible. Now, I think he could do 7.1.2 if the LCR were run on one AVR and the back four and top two were run on the other.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

System
Transducers: Revel Concerta2 F36 (3), M16 (4); Tannoy AMS 6DC (4); Rythmik F18 (2)
Front end: NAD T758 v3; Outlaw Model 7125
Sources: Panasonic UB820; Oppo BDP-103; Toshiba HD-A2
Projection: JVC DLA-RS440; Seymour CenterStage UF retractable 110" 2.35:1

bkeeler10 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #49082 of 54474 Old 04-05-2018, 09:20 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 27,315
Mentioned: 184 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6810 Post(s)
Liked: 5755
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddgdl View Post
Especially when he is wrong about being able to chain together two 5.x.2 receivers to make an even remotely accurate 7.x.4
Indeed, neither AVR will render to 4 heights. Also, if one of the AVRs is configured for 7.1, then ALL the height information will be duplicated in the base layer (since that AVR has no height speakers configured to remove the height info from the base layer).
richlife and kbarnes701 like this.

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #49083 of 54474 Old 04-05-2018, 09:20 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
gene4ht's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Troy, MI
Posts: 3,824
Mentioned: 64 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1891 Post(s)
Liked: 2564
Quote:
Originally Posted by helvetica bold View Post
What do you guys think about the KEF Q100s as the base for a 5.1.4 system?
I might mix them with SVS Elevation speakers for heights of course.
I know I have to listen to them for myself but they’re on sale at Amazon. I had my eye on the new Elacs but from what I’ve read the Q100s might be slightly better. Elacs just seem to be popular right now. Thoughts?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You may be better served visiting and posting in the KEF and Elac specific threads...i.e.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/89-spe...-0-b5-2-a.html

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/89-spe...but-6-2-a.html
helvetica bold likes this.

Epson: 5040UB | Elite: 115" Fixed Frame CinemaScope (2.35:1) | Onkyo: TX-RZ920 + M-5010 (7.2.4) | Klipsch: RF-7 II's, RC-64 II, RS-62 II, RB-61 II MICCA: M-8C (Atmos) x 6 | SVS: PB16-Ultra x 2 | Philips: BDP7501, Panasonic: DMP UB900, Oppo: UDP-203
gene4ht is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #49084 of 54474 Old 04-05-2018, 01:28 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Jonas2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: South Bay Area
Posts: 5,426
Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2724 Post(s)
Liked: 1696
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRock3x8 View Post
oh mi gosh man. It is possible. I've seen it.

This is why this forum makes me so upset - people pissing on other people for solutions that work for them - so disgusting.
No, it's not that.

It is just that you need the processor to decode and handle the appropriate number of channels you want to drive. If that is 7.x.4, then you've gotta have a processor that can handle all of those channels and get the right info to the right place!

I'm sure you can do so kind of multi-receiver combo like you are talking about, especially if all you need is additional amplification. But without the proper processing, I don't know how you could end up with anything except for some kind of pesudo-Atmos system. What was it that you saw, can you point us to it?
m. zillch and richlife like this.

7.2.4 System: Display: Sony XBR-65X930D; Processing: Anthem AVM60
Mains:
Paradigm Prestige 85F and 55C; Side / Rear Surrounds: Totem Acoustic Tribe III / Tribe I; Amplification: D-Sonic M3a-2800-7 (7ch. x 400w)
ATMOS:
Definitive Technology DI8R; Amplification: Class D Audio SDS-470C (4ch. x 300w)
Subwoofers:
2 x SVS-SB13Ultras; Media: Oppo UDP-203, Pioneer CLD-59
Jonas2 is offline  
post #49085 of 54474 Old 04-05-2018, 01:50 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
asarose247's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: DIY enabled in SoCal / OC
Posts: 4,177
Mentioned: 98 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1158 Post(s)
Liked: 1010
SCATMOS hookup and 40 ft^2 cloud
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	8 pieces ATMOS Cloud20160613_162349[1].jpg
Views:	143
Size:	1.12 MB
ID:	2385424  
Attached Files
File Type: pdf SCATMOS.pdf (129.4 KB, 50 views)

DIY FAN Denon X4400 , ATI A 2000 for 7.4.6 SCATMOS Sammy 82" 4K/HDR
L/R: Fusion 15 V2 , C: 88 Special , SL/SR: 88 Special(V2) , RL/RR: F-3, TF/TR: Volt 6's TM: SLX, FH: F4Q4
SUBMAXIMUS V2, ,Submaximus V3,LOWARHORNCustom Dual Driver VBSS,2 x 6000DSP
asarose247 is offline  
post #49086 of 54474 Old 04-05-2018, 01:56 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
thrang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 7,090
Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2478 Post(s)
Liked: 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRock3x8 View Post
oh mi gosh man. It is possible. I've seen it.

This is why this forum makes me so upset - people pissing on other people for solutions that work for them - so disgusting.
LOL, most people can't get the normal crap to work right...who has time to teach Frankenstein table manners? (not you, the kludge...)

This really deserves its own thread, thats all...post the link here and interested people will wander there.

UPDATED 4/29/17 Thrang's Home Theater (for now...)
Sony VPL-VW5000es • Panamorph Paladin DCR • Trinnov Altitude 16 • Crown DCIn amplifiers • JBL M2 (LCR-LW-RW) • JBL S2S-EX subwoofers x2 • JBL SCL-4 (side/rear surrounds) • JBL SCS12 (x4) SCS8 (x2) TH/RH/TM • Lumagen Radiance Pro • Panasonic UB820 • Apple TV 4k • Synology RAID (45 TB total storage) • RTI control system
thrang is offline  
post #49087 of 54474 Old 04-05-2018, 10:01 PM
Member
 
cyberlocc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 176
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 138 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonas2 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRock3x8 View Post
oh mi gosh man. It is possible. I've seen it.

This is why this forum makes me so upset - people pissing on other people for solutions that work for them - so disgusting.
No, it's not that.

It is just that you need the processor to decode and handle the appropriate number of channels you want to drive. If that is 7.x.4, then you've gotta have a processor that can handle all of those channels and get the right info to the right place!

I'm sure you can do so kind of multi-receiver combo like you are talking about, especially if all you need is additional amplification. But without the proper processing, I don't know how you could end up with anything except for some kind of pesudo-Atmos system. What was it that you saw, can you point us to it?
It has been done kind of, there is a thread about which was linked above. The addintional recievers are not for amplification, they are using Dolby Pro Logic to turn 2 heights into 4, and 4 into 6 and 4 into 8, ECT. It's really interesting actually.

He may be able to adapt it to work for his needs, there was some talk of doing that in the thread not sure how it turned out though. However as someone pointed out above, it can't create height channels.

They started with 7.1.2 and turned that into 7.1.6 by using 3 AVRs and Dolby Pro Logic.

Here is the link again if you want to check it out. Neat stuff really.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-rec...2321145?page=1

Last edited by cyberlocc; 04-05-2018 at 10:20 PM.
cyberlocc is offline  
post #49088 of 54474 Old 04-05-2018, 10:36 PM
Member
 
cyberlocc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 176
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 138 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Also wanted to add, a solution to the 2 receivers problem maybe? It was something I was thinking about.

Maybe someone with 2 receivers could try it or give a idea of what it couldn't work if it can't?

I am under the impression that Atmos sends all possible signals no matter what correct? The PC/Blu-ray player whatever doesn't know you don't have 9.2.6 receiver does it?

So if this is the case what is stopping you from using 2 7 channel receivers. So let's say an HTPC source, you could then wire a HDMI from the HTPC and into a splitter splliting the signal into 2. 1 goes into each AVR. AVR 1 is set to use 7.1, AVR 2 is set to 3.1.4 (is this possible?) You can now use AVR 2s speakers as just not there, maybe hook them up for Calibration then connect them back to AVR 1.

You are now splliting the processing between 2 receivers which are both receiving the same audio signals. I have see. Similar in that other thread however with talks of use Zone 2 outputs (though that makes everything stereo doesn't it?)

Edit: I have done some reading on threads here. And it was stated this does work, however you will have sound stage issues. However that statement was made about using reciever 2 to add surround backs, if all Atmos speakers are ran through AVR2 that should not be an issue.

Especially if the same fronts are used in both setups for Calibration. I guess it may send surround sounds to Atmos speakers that don't belong there, so maybe it will only work for adding the .2 in 7.1.2, would have to try.

One galring downside would of course be that you would have to turn up each receiver if you wanted to raise the volume ECT, but a Harmony hub could take care of that easy enough.

However with enough receivers and proper wiring wiring you could build a pretty big system like that 😛.

Last edited by cyberlocc; 04-05-2018 at 10:54 PM.
cyberlocc is offline  
post #49089 of 54474 Old 04-05-2018, 11:58 PM
Advanced Member
 
ddgdl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 576
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 315 Post(s)
Liked: 281
There is no way to get actual 7.1.4 out of two 5.1.2 receivers, as repeatedly stated. The only way to get accurate 7.1.4 out of two receivers is to have two nine-channel atmos receivers, one with 7.1.2 capability and one with 5.1.4. But that will be a ridiculous headache for no reason when atmos receivers capable of decoding 11 channels already exist and are relatively cheap. In fact, many 9 channel atmos receivers have 11 channel processing, and all you need to add is a 2 channel amp.

Bottom line, it's not possible to do what the poster was trying to do (5.1.2 times 2 for 7.1.4). Any and all permutations of this have been investigated and addressed in the Beyond 7.1.4 thread.
ddgdl is offline  
post #49090 of 54474 Old 04-06-2018, 12:06 AM
Advanced Member
 
ddgdl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 576
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 315 Post(s)
Liked: 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by cyberlocc View Post
Also wanted to add, a solution to the 2 receivers problem maybe? It was something I was thinking about.

Maybe someone with 2 receivers could try it or give a idea of what it couldn't work if it can't?

I am under the impression that Atmos sends all possible signals no matter what correct? The PC/Blu-ray player whatever doesn't know you don't have 9.2.6 receiver does it?

So if this is the case what is stopping you from using 2 7 channel receivers. So let's say an HTPC source, you could then wire a HDMI from the HTPC and into a splitter splliting the signal into 2. 1 goes into each AVR. AVR 1 is set to use 7.1, AVR 2 is set to 3.1.4 (is this possible?) You can now use AVR 2s speakers as just not there, maybe hook them up for Calibration then connect them back to AVR 1.

You are now splliting the processing between 2 receivers which are both receiving the same audio signals. I have see. Similar in that other thread however with talks of use Zone 2 outputs (though that makes everything stereo doesn't it?)

Edit: I have done some reading on threads here. And it was stated this does work, however you will have sound stage issues. However that statement was made about using reciever 2 to add surround backs, if all Atmos speakers are ran through AVR2 that should not be an issue.

Especially if the same fronts are used in both setups for Calibration. I guess it may send surround sounds to Atmos speakers that don't belong there, so maybe it will only work for adding the .2 in 7.1.2, would have to try.

One galring downside would of course be that you would have to turn up each receiver if you wanted to raise the volume ECT, but a Harmony hub could take care of that easy enough.

However with enough receivers and proper wiring wiring you could build a pretty big system like that 😛.
Won't work- there are no 7 channel atmos receivers that have 4 atmos channels
ddgdl is offline  
post #49091 of 54474 Old 04-06-2018, 12:25 AM
Member
 
cyberlocc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 176
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 138 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Ya if you can do 3.1.4 then that idea wouldn't work. I wasn't sure if that worked on or not seen people talk about it forgot what the verdict was.

I wouldn't say that 11 chanel recievers are cheap per see lol. 1500 dollars is a pretty penny to slot of people.

Easy way for the guy that was asking. Look up the HTPC sound proccessors you can build a 16 channel for under a grand and then you need a bunch if amps and a bunch of patience lol.

If you can find the right sound card, may be able to do it pretty cheap. Don't plan on it being wife friendly though, or easy to use even for you lol. By the time you buy amps and everything though, you'd of been better off buying the receiver.

Last edited by cyberlocc; 04-06-2018 at 12:30 AM.
cyberlocc is offline  
post #49092 of 54474 Old 04-06-2018, 07:05 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Selden Ball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: upstate NY
Posts: 14,822
Mentioned: 45 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4804 Post(s)
Liked: 2842
11 channel 2015 model year receivers, like the Denon AVR-X6200W or Marantz SR7010, can do either 7.1.4 or 9.1.2 and are substantially discounted when they're available. (If you don't want DTS:X, you could use 2014 models, which are even less.) Combining two of them to provide 9.1.4 would be much less expensive than the 13 channel devices currently available. We do not yet know if this fall's AVR-X4500H or Marantz SR7013 will provide 13 channels, but it seems likely that those new models will still cost more than twice what the 2015 models will cost by then. However, as previously mentioned, such non-standard configurations probably would be best discussed in the thread https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-rec...ive-audio.html

Selden

Marantz SR7009 avr + MM9000 amp --> Atmos 7.1.4
Fronts=NHT 2.9+AC2, FH+TM=DefTech PM1000, LCR+TM amped
Selden Ball is offline  
post #49093 of 54474 Old 04-06-2018, 09:53 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
gene4ht's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Troy, MI
Posts: 3,824
Mentioned: 64 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1891 Post(s)
Liked: 2564
Or for those in no particular hurry and have the patience, similar offerings for the 8500 will be available in 2-3 years.
Mr.G likes this.

Epson: 5040UB | Elite: 115" Fixed Frame CinemaScope (2.35:1) | Onkyo: TX-RZ920 + M-5010 (7.2.4) | Klipsch: RF-7 II's, RC-64 II, RS-62 II, RB-61 II MICCA: M-8C (Atmos) x 6 | SVS: PB16-Ultra x 2 | Philips: BDP7501, Panasonic: DMP UB900, Oppo: UDP-203
gene4ht is online now  
post #49094 of 54474 Old 04-07-2018, 07:41 AM
Member
 
Solarium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 189
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 84 Post(s)
Liked: 13
What do you guys think of these? I'm debating to build a wall over my balcony area for my HT (thread here) or to get this. Building the wall will significantly lower the resale value of the house so I may have to break it down when I move out, but these accordion doors can be opened and closed and will be left in there. The only thing that I'm concerned about is whether they provide sufficient sound isolation. But then again, this HT won't be completely sound proof due to the design of the house anyway.

HT: LG OLED65B7A, Denon AVR-X7200WA, B&W CM10 S2, CMC2 S2, CM5 S2, HTR-7000 x4 (atmos), SVS SB13 Ultra x2
Desktop: KEF LS50 Wireless, KEF PSW4000 (https://pcpartpicker.com/user/Fridge...s/#view=r2V6Mp)
Portable: Chord Mojo, Shure KSE-1500
Solarium is offline  
post #49095 of 54474 Old 04-07-2018, 07:52 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 27,227
Mentioned: 125 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7737 Post(s)
Liked: 7010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Solarium View Post
What do you guys think of these? I'm debating to build a wall over my balcony area for my HT (thread here) or to get this. Building the wall will significantly lower the resale value of the house so I may have to break it down when I move out, but these accordion doors can be opened and closed and will be left in there. The only thing that I'm concerned about is whether they provide sufficient sound isolation. But then again, this HT won't be completely sound proof due to the design of the house anyway.
The doors have an STC rating of 45/E90. On the face of it that is a useful attenuation of sound. However... there is no mention that I can see of the frequency range the STC applies to so it may mean very little. It may well give you a 45dB attenuation of frequencies from 2000Hz upwards and nothing below that, which would be essentially useless.

Also, and this is the biggie - STC only considers frequencies down to 125 Hz. Most sound nuisance complaints are from noise sources that are below 125Hz - and in a HT there is a lot of content below 125Hz. I spent in the tens of thousands of dollars area to create sound containment in my HT and it is very, very difficult and a highly specialized area. Bass in particular is very, very difficult to contain (think of those kids in cars with their bass boxes - the bass is all you can hear at the lights since it passes clean through the car). I would say those doors will do nothing whatsoever to attenuate bass, so you may as well not fit them in the first place and seek a cheaper solution. There is almost nothing, IME and IMO you can do in your current situation to isolate sound from your proposed HT, unfortunately, based on the information provided.
kbarnes701 is offline  
post #49096 of 54474 Old 04-07-2018, 07:57 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 27,227
Mentioned: 125 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7737 Post(s)
Liked: 7010
^^^^ On the doors website, note this case history:

"A principal from an elementary school in New Hampshire wanted to be able to divide a large classroom in half to be able to support both a Kindergarten and 1st Grade class. The principal contacted Soundproofing Accordion Doors, a division of All Noise Control.

"The school approached us with what they wanted to do and a list of requirements and specs. They wanted something that was moveable when needed, sturdy, and soundproof between two different classrooms.

"Our team recommended an Accordion Door with an STC of 45. We explained that STC stood for “Sound Transmission Control” and that the higher the STC, the better the product would be at absorbing and/or blocking sound. We configured that an STC of 45 would be the best solution for a classroom divider that would consist of a good amount of “chatter”, kids yelling and screaming, and teachers trying to conduct daily educational lessons.

"Upon the installation, the principal was extremely satisfied with the ability to separate the large classroom and also the ability for each class to be able to hold their own daily educational activities with a small amount of sound between the two sides."


That would be a great use for that product. Not too high a noise level to begin with and almost zero component below 125Hz, since all of the noise was the human voice, and kids' voices at that. So the product itself is fine, just not for the use you need it for. Sorry.
kbarnes701 is offline  
post #49097 of 54474 Old 04-09-2018, 07:51 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
richlife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Central NC
Posts: 1,515
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 848 Post(s)
Liked: 1059
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRock3x8 View Post
oh mi gosh man. It is possible. I've seen it.

This is why this forum makes me so upset - people pissing on other people for solutions that work for them - so disgusting.
Most of the people sharing here have also shared in those "alternative" threads --

Quote:
Originally Posted by cyberlocc View Post
It has been done kind of, there is a thread about which was linked above. The addintional recievers are not for amplification, they are using Dolby Pro Logic to turn 2 heights into 4, and 4 into 6 and 4 into 8, ECT. It's really interesting actually.

He may be able to adapt it to work for his needs, there was some talk of doing that in the thread not sure how it turned out though. However as someone pointed out above, it can't create height channels.

They started with 7.1.2 and turned that into 7.1.6 by using 3 AVRs and Dolby Pro Logic.

Here is the link again if you want to check it out. Neat stuff really.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-rec...2321145?page=1
This is the point, basically, that the JRock is ignoring -- it's not Atmos, it's "kind of". I can get "kind of" too -- and it sure ain't Atmos! Atmos "objects" are embedded information in the pcm stream that are extracted and properly placed by the Atmos decoder. No Atmos decoder, no object detection and (at best) only psuedo-Atmos-surround audio.

As for the statement that there is no Atmos AVR for less than $1000 -- not true. Just looking at the line I know: https://usa.yamaha.com/products/audi...1_u/index.html .

Current option: $499.95.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B06XY6DJV7...3285142&sr=8-3

Atmos/DTS:X HT in Vaulted Room -- LG OLED Settings Options
Yamaha RX-A3060: 7.2.4 or 7.2.2 + Zone2 (switchable); OPPO 203; LG OLED65B6P; Harmony 650 & Home Hub
Base: Mirage OM-6 (FLR), MC-si (C), OM-R2 (SLR), FRx-nine (BLR)
Presence: ELAC A4s (FP), RSL C34Es (RP); 2 aci Titan subs; RP amp: AudioSource AMP100VS
richlife is offline  
post #49098 of 54474 Old 04-09-2018, 09:00 AM
Member
 
cyberlocc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 176
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 138 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by richlife View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRock3x8 View Post
oh mi gosh man. It is possible. I've seen it.

This is why this forum makes me so upset - people pissing on other people for solutions that work for them - so disgusting.
Most of the people sharing here have also shared in those "alternative" threads --

Quote:
Originally Posted by cyberlocc View Post
It has been done kind of, there is a thread about which was linked above. The addintional recievers are not for amplification, they are using Dolby Pro Logic to turn 2 heights into 4, and 4 into 6 and 4 into 8, ECT. It's really interesting actually.

He may be able to adapt it to work for his needs, there was some talk of doing that in the thread not sure how it turned out though. However as someone pointed out above, it can't create height channels.

They started with 7.1.2 and turned that into 7.1.6 by using 3 AVRs and Dolby Pro Logic.

Here is the link again if you want to check it out. Neat stuff really.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-rec...2321145?page=1
This is the point, basically, that the JRock is ignoring -- it's not Atmos, it's "kind of". I can get "kind of" too -- and it sure ain't Atmos! Atmos "objects" are embedded information in the pcm stream that are extracted and properly placed by the Atmos decoder. No Atmos decoder, no object detection and (at best) only psuedo-Atmos-surround audio.

As for the statement that there is no Atmos AVR for less than $1000 -- not true. Just looking at the line I know: https://usa.yamaha.com/products/audi...1_u/index.html .

Current option: $499.95.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B06XY6DJV7...3285142&sr=8-3
2 things.

1. Atmos does not and cannot run over PCM, firstly source devices do not have Atmos decoding. Secondly if they did you would still be limited to 8 channels one of those bieng LFE, thus 5.1.2 would be the max. Atmos is bitstreamed.

A PCM stream means that that source already decoded the sound and sends channel specific packets. Which doesn't happen in Atmos right now.

2. That is a 5.1.2 receiver, and they can be had with Atmos cheaper than that, the 1000 dollar statement was in regards to him wanting 7.1.4, as he already stated he has a 5.1.2 Atmos receiver. For a 9 channel or 11 channel Atmos it will cost you 1000+
gene4ht likes this.
cyberlocc is offline  
post #49099 of 54474 Old 04-09-2018, 09:15 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
richlife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Central NC
Posts: 1,515
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 848 Post(s)
Liked: 1059
Quote:
Originally Posted by cyberlocc View Post
2 things.

1. Atmos does not and cannot run over PCM, firstly source devices do not have Atmos decoding. Secondly if they did you would still be limited to 8 channels one of those bieng LFE, thus 5.1.2 would be the max. Atmos is bitstreamed.

A PCM stream means that that source already decoded the sound and sends channel specific packets. Which doesn't happen in Atmos right now.

2. That is a 5.1.2 receiver, and they can be had with Atmos cheaper than that, the 1000 dollar statement was in regards to him wanting 7.1.4, as he already stated he has a 5.1.2 Atmos receiver. For a 9 channel or 11 channel Atmos it will cost you 1000+
Mea culpa. I thought I was muddling the pcm comment -- recovering from knee replacement. Good to have the correct.


As for 2, I missed that his receiver is Atmos capable -- again, mea culpa.
gene4ht likes this.

Atmos/DTS:X HT in Vaulted Room -- LG OLED Settings Options
Yamaha RX-A3060: 7.2.4 or 7.2.2 + Zone2 (switchable); OPPO 203; LG OLED65B6P; Harmony 650 & Home Hub
Base: Mirage OM-6 (FLR), MC-si (C), OM-R2 (SLR), FRx-nine (BLR)
Presence: ELAC A4s (FP), RSL C34Es (RP); 2 aci Titan subs; RP amp: AudioSource AMP100VS
richlife is offline  
post #49100 of 54474 Old 04-09-2018, 09:30 AM
Member
 
cyberlocc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 176
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 138 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by richlife View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by cyberlocc View Post
2 things.

1. Atmos does not and cannot run over PCM, firstly source devices do not have Atmos decoding. Secondly if they did you would still be limited to 8 channels one of those bieng LFE, thus 5.1.2 would be the max. Atmos is bitstreamed.

A PCM stream means that that source already decoded the sound and sends channel specific packets. Which doesn't happen in Atmos right now.

2. That is a 5.1.2 receiver, and they can be had with Atmos cheaper than that, the 1000 dollar statement was in regards to him wanting 7.1.4, as he already stated he has a 5.1.2 Atmos receiver. For a 9 channel or 11 channel Atmos it will cost you 1000+
Mea culpa. I thought I was muddling the pcm comment -- recovering from knee replacement. Good to have the correct.


As for 2, I missed that his receiver is Atmos capable -- again, mea culpa.
All good 🙂 was just filling in the blanks with the second part in case others missed that part.
cyberlocc is offline  
post #49101 of 54474 Old 04-09-2018, 09:41 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 27,227
Mentioned: 125 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7737 Post(s)
Liked: 7010
Quote:
Originally Posted by richlife View Post
Mea culpa. I thought I was muddling the pcm comment -- recovering from knee replacement. Good to have the correct.


As for 2, I missed that his receiver is Atmos capable -- again, mea culpa.
Culpa tua or not, you still have the basis of it right: what the guy wants to do can't be done. What can be done is the 'Scatmos' thing invented by @Scott Simonian and also pioneered by @Nalleh here on AVS, but they start with a 7.x.4 AVR if memory serves and then use a clever workaround to derive two additional height channels to give 7.x.6. As Sanjay and others have pointed out in this thread, starting with a 5.x.2 Atmos AVR isn't going to work for what the guy wants to do. It was worthwhile him asking the question, but then he seemed to get annoyed that people were telling him it isn't going to work. Still, this is the wrong thread for it anyway and if he is going to get anywhere with the idea, the other thread he's been linked to is the best place to look for advice.
gene4ht and richlife like this.
kbarnes701 is offline  
post #49102 of 54474 Old 04-09-2018, 09:59 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Jonas2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: South Bay Area
Posts: 5,426
Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2724 Post(s)
Liked: 1696
Side Surround Location

My room situation is unfortunate in that right side surround speaker has to be fairly close to the listeners, and all surrounds are monopoles on stands for a few reasons. Originally placed them at 100 or so-ish degrees, angled forward to "shoot" the sound just past the closest listener and to help avoid hot-spotting. 90 degrees just not an option, too direct on the right side (left no problem as it can be pushed out to any distance, thanks to no wall, and these things are on stands).

Finally had some time to experiment Saturday/yesterday a bit with re-locating my side surround speakers.Went with the approximately 80 degrees, aimed more or less at the listener opposite the speaker - so now no blockage for anybody on the 3-person couch. (which is usually just ME anwyay.....).

Still in the early stages, but I've gotta say - I think I'm liking this arrangement. Although it does not necessarily place the speakers further from the MLP, it definitely reduces the hot-spotting. Does a very nice job of placing the sounds where I feel they need to be, but it's like the speakers have all but disappeared, which is how it is supposed to be. Much better than the 100 degree location. This move also increased the separation between the rear surrounds, so the sound field just seems to be generally more uniform with test clips that aim to exploit the entire surround field. I don't know if that makes sense or not? Otherwise I'd have to say that there is a slight "front of the room bias", which makes some sense.

I'm pretty sure 90 degrees is the sweet spot, all else being more or less "perfect" - but if this is not an option for you, or you're in a similar boat as me - SERIOUSLY be sure and try this 80-degree-ish location if you haven't, and you've got monopoles at least. More testing to be done, but I'm liking this so far. So thanks to all the discussion throughout this and other threads of this potential. Why did I wait so long?
sdurani, gene4ht and Ted99 like this.

7.2.4 System: Display: Sony XBR-65X930D; Processing: Anthem AVM60
Mains:
Paradigm Prestige 85F and 55C; Side / Rear Surrounds: Totem Acoustic Tribe III / Tribe I; Amplification: D-Sonic M3a-2800-7 (7ch. x 400w)
ATMOS:
Definitive Technology DI8R; Amplification: Class D Audio SDS-470C (4ch. x 300w)
Subwoofers:
2 x SVS-SB13Ultras; Media: Oppo UDP-203, Pioneer CLD-59
Jonas2 is offline  
post #49103 of 54474 Old 04-09-2018, 10:34 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
gene4ht's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Troy, MI
Posts: 3,824
Mentioned: 64 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1891 Post(s)
Liked: 2564
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonas2 View Post
My room situation is unfortunate in that right side surround speaker has to be fairly close to the listeners, and all surrounds are monopoles on stands for a few reasons. Originally placed them at 100 or so-ish degrees, angled forward to "shoot" the sound just past the closest listener and to help avoid hot-spotting. 90 degrees just not an option, too direct on the right side (left no problem as it can be pushed out to any distance, thanks to no wall, and these things are on stands).

Finally had some time to experiment Saturday/yesterday a bit with re-locating my side surround speakers.Went with the approximately 80 degrees, aimed more or less at the listener opposite the speaker - so now no blockage for anybody on the 3-person couch. (which is usually just ME anwyay.....).

Still in the early stages, but I've gotta say - I think I'm liking this arrangement. Although it does not necessarily place the speakers further from the MLP, it definitely reduces the hot-spotting. Does a very nice job of placing the sounds where I feel they need to be, but it's like the speakers have all but disappeared, which is how it is supposed to be. Much better than the 100 degree location. This move also increased the separation between the rear surrounds, so the sound field just seems to be generally more uniform with test clips that aim to exploit the entire surround field. I don't know if that makes sense or not? Otherwise I'd have to say that there is a slight "front of the room bias", which makes some sense.

I'm pretty sure 90 degrees is the sweet spot, all else being more or less "perfect" - but if this is not an option for you, or you're in a similar boat as me - SERIOUSLY be sure and try this 80-degree-ish location if you haven't, and you've got monopoles at least. More testing to be done, but I'm liking this so far. So thanks to all the discussion throughout this and other threads of this potential. Why did I wait so long?
I think this is the key advice and learnings from most of the experienced folks in this and other threads...very few people have perfect rooms, experimentation is a must for best results, surrround/3D sound is very forgiving, and it's hard to do bad Atmos. I'm sure everyone is appreciative of your testimonial and successful proof of the recommendations provided by AVS members.
sdurani, kbarnes701, kevyh and 1 others like this.

Epson: 5040UB | Elite: 115" Fixed Frame CinemaScope (2.35:1) | Onkyo: TX-RZ920 + M-5010 (7.2.4) | Klipsch: RF-7 II's, RC-64 II, RS-62 II, RB-61 II MICCA: M-8C (Atmos) x 6 | SVS: PB16-Ultra x 2 | Philips: BDP7501, Panasonic: DMP UB900, Oppo: UDP-203
gene4ht is online now  
post #49104 of 54474 Old 04-09-2018, 11:35 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 27,227
Mentioned: 125 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7737 Post(s)
Liked: 7010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonas2 View Post
My room situation is unfortunate in that right side surround speaker has to be fairly close to the listeners, and all surrounds are monopoles on stands for a few reasons. Originally placed them at 100 or so-ish degrees, angled forward to "shoot" the sound just past the closest listener and to help avoid hot-spotting. 90 degrees just not an option, too direct on the right side (left no problem as it can be pushed out to any distance, thanks to no wall, and these things are on stands).

Finally had some time to experiment Saturday/yesterday a bit with re-locating my side surround speakers.Went with the approximately 80 degrees, aimed more or less at the listener opposite the speaker - so now no blockage for anybody on the 3-person couch. (which is usually just ME anwyay.....).

Still in the early stages, but I've gotta say - I think I'm liking this arrangement. Although it does not necessarily place the speakers further from the MLP, it definitely reduces the hot-spotting. Does a very nice job of placing the sounds where I feel they need to be, but it's like the speakers have all but disappeared, which is how it is supposed to be. Much better than the 100 degree location. This move also increased the separation between the rear surrounds, so the sound field just seems to be generally more uniform with test clips that aim to exploit the entire surround field. I don't know if that makes sense or not? Otherwise I'd have to say that there is a slight "front of the room bias", which makes some sense.

I'm pretty sure 90 degrees is the sweet spot, all else being more or less "perfect" - but if this is not an option for you, or you're in a similar boat as me - SERIOUSLY be sure and try this 80-degree-ish location if you haven't, and you've got monopoles at least. More testing to be done, but I'm liking this so far. So thanks to all the discussion throughout this and other threads of this potential. Why did I wait so long?
Good news that this is working well for you. I agree with all you say other than that 90 degrees is the sweet spot. I personally don't think it is ever the best place: in a 5.1 setup you really need the surrounds slightly behind you, to give an impression of sounds from behind as well as around you, and in a 7.1 system, placing the surrounds slightly in front of you, as you have found, very nicely 'fills the gap' between the mains and the rear surrounds, so giving more envelopment and immersion. Energy trading (aiming the left speaker towards the right-side listener and vice-versa) also helps reduce or even eliminate any hotspotting.

Of course, HT is all about compromise and even when building a room from the ground up, as I did, one still has to compromise. In my case, my fire exit door (mandated by UK Laws) is slap bang at 80 degrees from MLP so I couldn't locate a speaker there (the building inspector wouldn't allow it to be mounted o nthe door itself). If I had been doing the construction myself I'd have ignored them and mounted it on the door, but I was using a reputable firm of installers so couldn;t really expect them to break code. It doesn't worry me as my surround speakers (coaxial, wide dispersion Tannoys) seem to work very well at 90 degrees.
kbarnes701 is offline  
post #49105 of 54474 Old 04-09-2018, 01:16 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Jonas2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: South Bay Area
Posts: 5,426
Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2724 Post(s)
Liked: 1696
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post
Good news that this is working well for you. I agree with all you say other than that 90 degrees is the sweet spot. I personally don't think it is ever the best place: in a 5.1 setup you really need the surrounds slightly behind you, to give an impression of sounds from behind as well as around you, and in a 7.1 system, placing the surrounds slightly in front of you, as you have found, very nicely 'fills the gap' between the mains and the rear surrounds, so giving more envelopment and immersion. Energy trading (aiming the left speaker towards the right-side listener and vice-versa) also helps reduce or even eliminate any hotspotting.
Yes, I should re-qualify that - the 90 degrees - definitely only in a 7.1 arrangement, not 5.1. And perhaps only if there is one person (unless the speakers are high enough to clear heads, which mine are not). 90 degrees really does have a lot going against it, but I would still recommend experimenting with it one is able to do so.

It really was something to listen to the reduction in hot-spotting, yet to have that sound seemingly exactly where it needed to be. It wasn't perfect all the time, but a definite improvement and on the average, was spot-on, as least so was my perception! Acoustics really is fascinating.

7.2.4 System: Display: Sony XBR-65X930D; Processing: Anthem AVM60
Mains:
Paradigm Prestige 85F and 55C; Side / Rear Surrounds: Totem Acoustic Tribe III / Tribe I; Amplification: D-Sonic M3a-2800-7 (7ch. x 400w)
ATMOS:
Definitive Technology DI8R; Amplification: Class D Audio SDS-470C (4ch. x 300w)
Subwoofers:
2 x SVS-SB13Ultras; Media: Oppo UDP-203, Pioneer CLD-59
Jonas2 is offline  
post #49106 of 54474 Old 04-09-2018, 02:27 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 27,315
Mentioned: 184 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6810 Post(s)
Liked: 5755
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonas2 View Post
Does a very nice job of placing the sounds where I feel they need to be, but it's like the speakers have all but disappeared, which is how it is supposed to be.
Know the feeling: in a dark room you can point to where certain sounds are but not were the speakers are. That's what stereophonic reproduction is supposed to be. Even with the side speakers slightly forward of the listening position, it's surprising how much imaging continues to localize directly to the sides (despite no speakers being there).
Jonas2 likes this.

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #49107 of 54474 Old 04-09-2018, 03:48 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
cfraser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto area, Canada
Posts: 1,668
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 285 Post(s)
Liked: 163
[I got Atmos-OT in another thread so am looking for some opinions in the proper place now. ]

I'm wondering what you guys recommend for a new Atmos ceiling/height speaker installation. I have 4 ceiling speakers now, re-purposed regular bookshelf speakers, but I installed them some years ago and there are now speakers that I believe would allow me to do a better coverage/installation job.

The room is 12'Wx18'Lx9'H. The room is fully treated for the base 7.1 speaker installation; 2 subs, all there's room for. Two "gotchas" for your consideration: the Front LCR are 6' from the front wall and can't be moved. There is a "cloud" ~half way between the LCR line and the MLP (pretend it's just me); this treatment does far more than I ever thought it would, and I really really want to leave it there, so pretend it's also immovable. The MLP is roughly 2/3 of the way down the room, so say this is roughly the 7.1 word picture going down the length of the room:

Front wall/sub - 6' - LCR - 3' - cloud - 3' - MLP/surrounds - 6' - Back wall/surrounds/sub (Hope that helps...)

I am also willing to (plan to actually) buy a new pre-pro/AVR. So if you think what I want is 6 ceiling/height speakers, don't be afraid to say it, I can only do 4 now. But considering the size of the room and that it already looks like a speaker breeding pen, I'd prefer to keep it to 4. I would also be getting new overhead speakers, in-ceiling not an option, so surface-mount of some form again.

Here's what's bugging me: See that 6' "gap" between the front wall and the LCR line. Does it need to have coverage? It doesn't now, and if it should have, heights rather than ceiling? Would coverage there be more of a "frill" rather than a necessity? Something to add in later, but it would require a 13.1 pre-pro so best at least considered now.

If 4 overhead speakers are enough, would you put them symmetrically on either side of the cloud? (That's roughly how they are now.) Or how about over the LCR and side surrounds? Do I need overheads behind the MLP? The rear surrounds seem adequate, but IDK, haven't tried another option. Thanks.

One other thing: right now the overhead speakers are powered by 2xstereo amps. Excessive, and I sure could use any freed-up space if I removed them. So I was thinking I could get a new AVR and use it to power just the overhead speakers, and power all the other speakers with the existing separate amps. As you know, going past 11.1 (4 overheads) gets you into another league of pre-pro/AVR pricing, with somewhat less choice for now, so it really needs to be worthwhile to do that (whatever you think "worthwhile" means...).

Last edited by cfraser; 04-09-2018 at 03:59 PM.
cfraser is offline  
post #49108 of 54474 Old 04-09-2018, 04:27 PM
Advanced Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 846
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 534 Post(s)
Liked: 124
I finally got to securing the 4 top speakers to the ceiling yesterday, and only now realized I may be doing this wrong, so wanted to clarify something.

Let's say for simplicity ear height to ceiling distance is 5 feet. Top Front Left (TFL) for example is 5 feet to the left of MLP Ears position, 5 feet forward and of course 5 feet up to ceiling.

If having an orthogonal view from the side of the room / (side view similar to the attached picture from the Dolby guidelines), you would see the speaker having a 45 elevation. E.g. if looking from left side of room, you would see the speaker 5 feet left, and 5 feet up resulting in an angle of 45 degrees.

But if you actually calculate the elevation based on horizontal distance from MLP to the point just below the speaker, you would get horizontal distance 7.07 feet (sqrt(5^2 + 5^2)), which then with the distance to ceiling of 5 feet, would result in an elevation of only 35 degrees which is closer to the minimum of the recommended range (30-55).

So which one is it, do I have it at 45, or do I have at 35 ?

I went along with calculating elevation from side view like in that pic, and thought I have it at 45, but it now makes me wonder if it is too far back, because not sure if the lateral distance also affects the calculation of the elevation. If it does, then maybe I needed to pull back the Top Fronts, and push front the Top rears somewhat closer to MLP.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	left_view_atmos.PNG
Views:	75
Size:	31.0 KB
ID:	2387786  
alextr75 is offline  
post #49109 of 54474 Old 04-09-2018, 04:34 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 27,315
Mentioned: 184 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6810 Post(s)
Liked: 5755
Quote:
Originally Posted by cfraser View Post
If 4 overhead speakers are enough, would you put them symmetrically on either side of the cloud?
No, symmetrically on either side of the MLP.

unretarded likes this.

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #49110 of 54474 Old 04-09-2018, 05:33 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Jonas2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: South Bay Area
Posts: 5,426
Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2724 Post(s)
Liked: 1696
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post
Know the feeling: in a dark room you can point to where certain sounds are but not were the speakers are. That's what stereophonic reproduction is supposed to be. Even with the side speakers slightly forward of the listening position, it's surprising how much imaging continues to localize directly to the sides (despite no speakers being there).
Yes! Precisely this. It's almost unreal!

7.2.4 System: Display: Sony XBR-65X930D; Processing: Anthem AVM60
Mains:
Paradigm Prestige 85F and 55C; Side / Rear Surrounds: Totem Acoustic Tribe III / Tribe I; Amplification: D-Sonic M3a-2800-7 (7ch. x 400w)
ATMOS:
Definitive Technology DI8R; Amplification: Class D Audio SDS-470C (4ch. x 300w)
Subwoofers:
2 x SVS-SB13Ultras; Media: Oppo UDP-203, Pioneer CLD-59
Jonas2 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