The official Dolby Atmos thread (home theater version) - Page 54 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 24939Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1591 of 54989 Old 07-20-2014, 10:42 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 27,558
Mentioned: 192 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6963 Post(s)
Liked: 5938
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlhaudio View Post
I guess if your indecisive or don't want to completely commit to atmos, you can have the best of both worlds albeit only 2 atmos speakers but 2 are better than none.
If limited to 11 speakers, I would do a 7.1.4 configuration first, then add wides later (as 13-channel receivers show up) to fill the gap between the fronts and sides.

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #1592 of 54989 Old 07-20-2014, 10:43 PM
Senior Member
 
cxr369's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 242
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 14
What would be best for the atoms in ceiling, monopole or bipole?
cxr369 is offline  
post #1593 of 54989 Old 07-20-2014, 10:44 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
westmd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,309
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 977 Post(s)
Liked: 405
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post
Care to make a clear sentence?
Sorry not to be precise enough. What I meant is that there are two ways to upmix legacy content to Atmos. One is by the studio itself if they take a legacy soundtrack and release an Atmos Blz Ray whilst the other possibility is an upmix from my processor/receiver at home by playing a non Atmos Blu Ray (or even DVD). Especially looking at the fact that studios sometimes just want to make a quick buck and do upmixing without special care I wonder how one or the other method sounds?
westmd is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #1594 of 54989 Old 07-20-2014, 10:49 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
westmd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,309
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 977 Post(s)
Liked: 405
Quote:
Originally Posted by cxr369 View Post
What would be best for the atoms in ceiling, monopole or bipole?
From what I read so far the ceiling speakers are gold standard.i have THX speakers at home and I have bought four additional LCR's and will attach these to the ceiling. If the upcoming Yamaha processor will be able to drive 15 channels I also will go for front and rear presence speakers additionally by the same method?
westmd is offline  
post #1595 of 54989 Old 07-20-2014, 11:28 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Franin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 22,182
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3056 Post(s)
Liked: 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by cxr369 View Post
What would be best for the atoms in ceiling, monopole or bipole?
I believe there monopole.

_________________________

God Bless,
Frank (直率的)(فرانك)(franc)(lantad)
Franin is online now  
post #1596 of 54989 Old 07-20-2014, 11:36 PM
 
NorthSky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Star of the Northern Hemisphere
Posts: 16,643
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7012 Post(s)
Liked: 3561
You are right Frank; coaxial monopole.
NorthSky is offline  
post #1597 of 54989 Old 07-21-2014, 01:07 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
JonStatt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 2,265
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 55 Post(s)
Liked: 52
My point about incomplete standards and implementations was that earlier in this thread it was theorised that Audyssey XT32 may not do well in calibrating downward firing speakers and may need a revision to be optimal for Atmos. As of today this revision has not been announced and the receivers indicate the same current versions of Audyssey in the September releases. Perhaps there will be a firmware update or maybe it will be another iteration of receivers. The mention of HDMI 2.0/HDCP2.2 was not to off track the thread but to give an example of a recent technology rollout in the AV world that is so severely flawed and to point out the mess that this has caused. For example Blu-ray can quite happily give the maximum your display is capable of whether it be a 720p. 1080i, or 1080p display. Whereas Blu-ray 4K will likely not display anything above 1080p on most current 4K TVs when released. Why is this relevant? Just to illustrate that for any new technology to be successful in my opinion, instead of rushing things out, it is better to get your "standards" in order cross-vendor before releasing product. If EQ is considered a vital feature, I hope that proper consideration to Atmos has been given rather than just stuffing Atmos in at the last minute of a design without end-to-end cohesion in the receivers capabilities.
JonStatt is offline  
post #1598 of 54989 Old 07-21-2014, 01:57 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Roger Dressler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Oregon
Posts: 11,450
Mentioned: 89 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2926 Post(s)
Liked: 1681
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Wielage View Post
One huge, huge problem for theatrical mixes is that their dynamic ranges are way too intense for an average living room. I'm sure all of you have encountered situations where you inch up the volume in order to hear low-level dialogue in a feature film, and then WHAM... you get hit by a massive orchestral peak or a big explosion, you get knocked out of your seat, and you have to quickly dial the level back by 4 or 5 dB. This is that problem.
Totally agree. (How's that for a change of pace? ) DVD content had a useful solution: DRC. Dolby's bitstreams default with embedded DRC (dynamic range control) metadata. If played through a stereo TV, it would kick in automatically and drop the LFE. And in an AVR this can be activated via the "night mode" or whatever it may be called, so it can work in 5.1 mode. Often it allows a choice of normal and heavy effect, as the DD bitstream carries two degrees of DRC. The heavy mode is great at keeping your hand off the remote when the loud stuff comes along.

As folks shifted to Blu-ray they essentially lost that feature because DTS does not use it. TrueHD soundtracks still have a DRC option, but I'm not sure people realize it. Presumably that will be retained for Atmos discs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Wielage View Post
My fear with Home Atmos is that if they jam 5 or 10 or 20 more channels in there, even with the metadata, there's a chance we're either going to miss important channel information we need to hear, or we're going to wind up with phase issues when multiple channels are combined.
Fear not. All these extra "channels" (objects) are entirely downmixed to make the standard 7.1 mix in the disc. By definition, it will sound correct, with no phase issues. That means there can be no unexpected phase or occlusion issues.

Prior to Atmos, all those same signals, and hundreds more, existed individually in the mixing console, and were all combined into the 5.1 mix of the day. In Atmos, the combining process (simple mixing) for some select sounds is just being moved downstream to the consumer's home. The moving part is hard, the mixing part is easy.

Deadwood II Theater (Previous Deadwood Theater HTOM)
Anthem AVM 60 7.4.4; Classé SSP-800 PLIIx 7.4; MiniDSP OpenDRC-AN
Oppo UDP-203; Oppo BDP-93; Win7 media PC w/Roon+Kodi; Roku Ultra; DirecTV Genie
Adam Audio S3V/S3H LCR, KEF Ci200QS 4 srrnd, Tannoy Di6 DC 4 hts, Hsu ULS-15 4 subs
JVC RS520; Stewart Cima Neve screen 125" diag 2.35:1, MLP at 115"
Roger Dressler is offline  
post #1599 of 54989 Old 07-21-2014, 03:22 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 27,229
Mentioned: 127 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7738 Post(s)
Liked: 7023
Quote:
Originally Posted by noah katz View Post
Yes, that is semantic; my point is that electronic EQ changes the direct sound emitted by the speaker.
Sure does, Noah - it wouldn’t be much use if it didn't But it's as you said - it changes the sound emitted by the speaker. It doesn't change the frequency response of the speaker.

What I mean is this: if a manufacturer managed to make a hypothetical speaker with an entirely flat FR from 20Hz to 20kHz, when the speaker was placed in a normal room, the measured in-room response of that speaker would be nowhere near flat. Electronic EQ could then bring the measured in-room response back to flat. But nothing has changed the FR of the speaker.

I think we both agree with each other, but, for me, it's an important distinction to make because so many people seem to believe (based on what they say here on AVS) that the room doesn't really affect the measured in-room FR of their system (ie room and speaker combined).
kbarnes701 is offline  
post #1600 of 54989 Old 07-21-2014, 03:29 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 27,229
Mentioned: 127 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7738 Post(s)
Liked: 7023
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cam Man View Post
+1


IIRC, MultEQxt32 keeps a pretty light touch on EQ above the mids. Correct? It does just enough to create the gentle room roll-off (or what is selected in Pro) ... plus the crossover zone correction (unless disabled in Pro). I thought that they don't mess much above 1K so as to not induce issues.
That's right - here's an in-depth look at it:
kbarnes701 is offline  
post #1601 of 54989 Old 07-21-2014, 03:34 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 27,229
Mentioned: 127 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7738 Post(s)
Liked: 7023
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post
It really is the absolute bare minimum, but even Dolby recommends at least 7.1.4. (11.1).

Since the industry wants to buy new gear based on existing platforms (for various cost cutting reasons) I just don't see them supporting low end outboard Atmos processors that plug into your current receiver or pre-amp via HDMI.

Maybe Oppo will jury rig something into their newer players. Who knows?
He didn’t understand that the upgradeable units have been specially designed in anticipation of Atmos and is perhaps thinking that any unit can be upgraded if the manufacturer so decides. As we know, there is no way for that top happen, for the reasons you have already stated.
kbarnes701 is offline  
post #1602 of 54989 Old 07-21-2014, 03:36 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 27,229
Mentioned: 127 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7738 Post(s)
Liked: 7023
Quote:
Originally Posted by nucky View Post
It's a damn good 5.1 system. I get the rain falling down from the ceiling and over head fly overs. So nothing new there.
Atmos isn't really about that. Sure, that is one of the benefits. But the main benefit is the ability to locate sounds in three dimensional space on precise x,y, z coordinates. No 5.1 system can do that.
kbarnes701 is offline  
post #1603 of 54989 Old 07-21-2014, 03:36 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
JonStatt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 2,265
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 55 Post(s)
Liked: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post
Sure does, Noah - it wouldn’t be much use if it didn't But it's as you said - it changes the sound emitted by the speaker. It doesn't change the frequency response of the speaker.

What I mean is this: if a manufacturer managed to make a hypothetical speaker with an entirely flat FR from 20Hz to 20kHz, when the speaker was placed in a normal room, the measured in-room response of that speaker would be nowhere near flat. Electronic EQ could then bring the measured in-room response back to flat. But nothing has changed the FR of the speaker.

I think we both agree with each other, but, for me, it's an important distinction to make because so many people seem to believe (based on what they say here on AVS) that the room doesn't really affect the measured in-room FR of their system (ie room and speaker combined).


I think there is one warning here though. If you are aiming to remove modes by inserting a negative PEQ filter, then that's fine. But if the natural speaker response is 40-20k with a -6dB at 30Hz...and then you start inserting a +6dB PEQ to try and boost it....you could be affecting the speaker in all sorts of ways particularly if it is only a 2-way or 3-way design. I have seen references here where people have indicated Audssey has boosted their LF responses achieving a flatter response lower than the speakers natural frequency roll-off point. This could be resulting in low level strain to that driver (not at a level to damage it) which can result in reduction in fidelity at the other frequencies it is responsible for producing. This is why I firmly believe in Room EQ for the reduction of room modes only...much less convinced about attempting to deal with troughs/dips during room EQ and very cautious about the ideas and ramifications of speaker EQ for fronts.
JonStatt is offline  
post #1604 of 54989 Old 07-21-2014, 03:40 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 27,229
Mentioned: 127 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7738 Post(s)
Liked: 7023
Quote:
Originally Posted by audiofan1 View Post
I'm sure Atmos will be great once properly setup but the jury is indeed still out as to the benefits at home in the various rooms it will be in baring proper setup of course.
The jury isn’t still out for me. I've heard it, in a HT setup, and the benefits for a home system are colossal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by audiofan1 View Post
but to say there is noway a 5.1 system can create a point source effect has more to do with proper system setup than anything else. There is a good reason why 2/ch is still around
No 5.1 system can place sound precisely on x,y, z coordinates. Yes of course a 2 channel system can image pretty well in front of you. And a 5.1 channel system can image pretty well in front of you and to the sides (and rear sometimes) as well. But neither can place a sound just above you, to your right and slightly in front of you.
kbarnes701 is offline  
post #1605 of 54989 Old 07-21-2014, 03:43 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 27,229
Mentioned: 127 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7738 Post(s)
Liked: 7023
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orbitron View Post
Another example, overhead footsteps clomping above deck in Master & Commander. If you don't hear this effect, work on room set-up and treatments before kicking it up to Atmos.
Yes, all the examples given, including yours, are correct and most of us have been hearing this for years. It has nothing at all to do with Atmos and what it can do. Maybe some more in-depth reading of how object-based sound works would help clarify the differences. Atmos is not just about "height effects".
kbarnes701 is offline  
post #1606 of 54989 Old 07-21-2014, 03:43 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 27,229
Mentioned: 127 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7738 Post(s)
Liked: 7023
Quote:
Originally Posted by bargervais View Post
I'm hoping atmos will be a bigger jump then what I have when I added highs and wides to my 5.2 set-up running highs and wides it does add fullness when listening in audyssey DSX Mode, but it wasn't a dramatic change but it does fill the front sound stage nicely.
I've used PLIIz since it first came out. Atmos is to PLIIz what 5.1 is to mono.
action_jackson likes this.
kbarnes701 is offline  
post #1607 of 54989 Old 07-21-2014, 03:44 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 27,229
Mentioned: 127 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7738 Post(s)
Liked: 7023
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post
Of course it will. Atmos uses discrete audio information with both channel beds and metadata infused audio object files. DTS Neo:X, DSX, and Prologic IIz are matrix derived post-processing algorithms and do not create new channels. They just artificially expand what's already there.

Some of this posturing that you don't need Atmos (or object audio) to create this or that effect seems to show a lack of understanding of how Atmos works.
Just made the same point. A lot of people still think it is all about "height effects".
kbarnes701 is offline  
post #1608 of 54989 Old 07-21-2014, 03:48 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 27,229
Mentioned: 127 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7738 Post(s)
Liked: 7023
Quote:
Originally Posted by chi_guy50 View Post
I don't see how you arrive at this conclusion. Without specific information from the AVR manufacturers we don't know yet exactly how Atmos at home will operate, but Audyssey MultEQ already detects and EQ's each speaker connected to the receiver's main zone speaker posts. Since the Atmos speakers would be fed through the AVR's Height1 and Height2 posts, my assumption is that those speakers would be EQ'd in similar fashion to any others. If not, then it would presumably be an omission by design for whatever reason. My $0.02.
Yes - Audyssey can already EQ 11 speakers, so 11 for an Atmos 7.1.4 setup or 11 for a 5.1 + Wides and Heights setup is the same to Audyssey. It is 11 speakers.

The only question some of us have is about the grazing angle of the mic. Audyssey requires the mic to point up to the ceiling - that is a grazing angle close to 90 degrees for a conventional 7.1 setup. But with Atmos, the mic will be pointing more or less directly at the ceiling speakers. Whether this will matter and how it works will have to be seen.
kbarnes701 is offline  
post #1609 of 54989 Old 07-21-2014, 03:54 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
J_P_A's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: L.A. - Lower Alabama
Posts: 5,175
Mentioned: 21 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 762 Post(s)
Liked: 573
Has a date been given as to when we should expect more details about optimum speaker placements, or are we just waiting for CEDIA?
J_P_A is offline  
post #1610 of 54989 Old 07-21-2014, 04:00 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 27,229
Mentioned: 127 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7738 Post(s)
Liked: 7023
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Wielage View Post
One huge, huge problem for theatrical mixes is that their dynamic ranges are way too intense for an average living room. I'm sure all of you have encountered situations where you inch up the volume in order to hear low-level dialogue in a feature film, and then WHAM... you get hit by a massive orchestral peak or a big explosion, you get knocked out of your seat, and you have to quickly dial the level back by 4 or 5 dB. This is that problem.
That does happen - but not so much when a system has been carefully set up at home and the room is treated and/or electronic EQ is usefully deployed. For example, it never happens here in my HT. And there are already electronic modes which are designed to deal with it.

What you seem to be suggesting is that the content producers deliberately dumb down Bluray mixes so that they play satisfactorily on poor or low quality home systems. No thanks!
Nightlord likes this.
kbarnes701 is offline  
post #1611 of 54989 Old 07-21-2014, 04:45 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Tnedator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,066
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 347 Post(s)
Liked: 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthSky View Post
You are right Frank; coaxial monopole.
I think the spec says timbre matched monopoles. Nothing about coaxial. As far as I know, the Coaxial aspect came from people saying they would be good options, probably mostly due to cost and partially due to small mounting footprint.
Tnedator is offline  
post #1612 of 54989 Old 07-21-2014, 05:22 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 27,229
Mentioned: 127 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7738 Post(s)
Liked: 7023
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tnedator View Post
I think the spec says timbre matched monopoles. Nothing about coaxial. As far as I know, the Coaxial aspect came from people saying they would be good options, probably mostly due to cost and partially due to small mounting footprint.
And the Andrew Jones designed Atmos speakers are coaxial drivers too, so maybe people are thinking of those. AJ is very enthusiastic about coaxial drivers.
kbarnes701 is offline  
post #1613 of 54989 Old 07-21-2014, 05:33 AM
Advanced Member
 
tjenkins95's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Rhode Island
Posts: 760
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 491 Post(s)
Liked: 443
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orbitron
Another example, overhead footsteps clomping above deck in Master & Commander. If you don't hear this effect, work on room set-up and treatments before kicking it up to Atmos.


Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post
Yes, all the examples given, including yours, are correct and most of us have been hearing this for years. It has nothing at all to do with Atmos and what it can do. Maybe some more in-depth reading of how object-based sound works would help clarify the differences. Atmos is not just about "height effects".




I own Master and Commander. Where are these "overhead footsteps clomping above the deck?" Is this throughout the movie or during a specific scene?


Thanks!

www.raysdvds.org
Denon AVR-X6200W; JVC RS500; Panasonic DMP-UB900; Oppo UDP-203;
Klipsch Speakers: RF-82, RC-62, RS-52, RB-61, RT-10d sub, Klipsch CDT-3650-C (4) ceiling.
Pioneer Dolby Atmos enabled Elite Concentric Speakers: SP-EFS73, SP-EBS73, and SP-EC73 in the guest room.
tjenkins95 is offline  
post #1614 of 54989 Old 07-21-2014, 05:46 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 27,229
Mentioned: 127 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7738 Post(s)
Liked: 7023
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjenkins95 View Post

I own Master and Commander. Where are these "overhead footsteps clomping above the deck?" Is this throughout the movie or during a specific scene?


Thanks!
It's near the beginning of the movie, just after the captain spots the French ship through his telescope. The enemy launch an attack on the ship and the captain gives the order to 'beat to quarters'. Following that, there is a scene where the action shifts to below decks and in that scene you can clearly hear crew members running about above decks. In a good system, you will hear their footsteps clattering on the wooden deck and the sound is clearly coming from 'above' you, even in a 5.1 system. The effect is exaggerated if you have Height speakers and use one of the upmixing algorithms such as PLIIz, DSX or Neo:X.

However, good though this is, and as I have said ad nauseam, Atmos is about much, much more than 'height effects'.

If you have Master and Commander, try the scene and see how it plays for you.

Last edited by kbarnes701; 07-21-2014 at 05:50 AM.
kbarnes701 is offline  
post #1615 of 54989 Old 07-21-2014, 05:53 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 27,229
Mentioned: 127 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7738 Post(s)
Liked: 7023
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonStatt View Post
I think there is one warning here though. If you are aiming to remove modes by inserting a negative PEQ filter, then that's fine. But if the natural speaker response is 40-20k with a -6dB at 30Hz...and then you start inserting a +6dB PEQ to try and boost it....you could be affecting the speaker in all sorts of ways particularly if it is only a 2-way or 3-way design. I have seen references here where people have indicated Audssey has boosted their LF responses achieving a flatter response lower than the speakers natural frequency roll-off point. This could be resulting in low level strain to that driver (not at a level to damage it) which can result in reduction in fidelity at the other frequencies it is responsible for producing. This is why I firmly believe in Room EQ for the reduction of room modes only...much less convinced about attempting to deal with troughs/dips during room EQ ...
Agreed. Using EQ to boost must always be done with caution and with an understanding of the ramifications of doing so.
kbarnes701 is offline  
post #1616 of 54989 Old 07-21-2014, 06:01 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Tnedator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,066
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 347 Post(s)
Liked: 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post
And the Andrew Jones designed Atmos speakers are coaxial drivers too, so maybe people are thinking of those. AJ is very enthusiastic about coaxial drivers.
The question that we don't now is whether that is due to the physics of bouncing the signal off the ceiling by mounting a speaker on top of the existing speaker or a factor of price, or because coax is an ideal choice.

That should become more clear when we see true ceiling mount Atmos dedicated speakers join the product lines and see if they are traditional or coax.

I'm not very familiar with coax speakers. Any issue getting a timbre match (Atmos states this is important) between traditional LCR and surrounds and coax Atmos ceiling (bounce or ceiling mounted) speakers?
Tnedator is offline  
post #1617 of 54989 Old 07-21-2014, 06:11 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 27,229
Mentioned: 127 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7738 Post(s)
Liked: 7023
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tnedator View Post
The question that we don't now is whether that is due to the physics of bouncing the signal off the ceiling by mounting a speaker on top of the existing speaker or a factor of price, or because coax is an ideal choice.

That should become more clear when we see true ceiling mount Atmos dedicated speakers join the product lines and see if they are traditional or coax.

I'm not very familiar with coax speakers. Any issue getting a timbre match (Atmos states this is important) between traditional LCR and surrounds and coax Atmos ceiling (bounce or ceiling mounted) speakers?
IIRC, AJ says he wanted to use a coaxial driver for various reasons, not least of which is that it would be an identical match to the driver used in the main section of his Atmos speakers. This is what seems most important to me - to get a good timbre match among all the speakers in a system. I would venture that it is more important to get a good timbral match than to use a coaxial driver per se (unless one's main speakers have those drivers of course and are from the same manufacturer). I am not going to switch to a different manufacturer for my top speakers simply because the former do not offer a coaxial design in their range. I want matching speakers above all.
Nightlord likes this.
kbarnes701 is offline  
post #1618 of 54989 Old 07-21-2014, 06:14 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
petetherock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Back in Asia for now
Posts: 3,594
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1677 Post(s)
Liked: 873
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonStatt View Post
My point about incomplete standards and implementations ...

The mention of HDMI 2.0/HDCP2.2 was not to off track the thread but to give an example of a recent technology rollout in the AV world that is so severely flawed and to point out the mess that this has caused. For example Blu-ray can quite happily give the maximum your display is capable of whether it be a 720p. 1080i, or 1080p display. Whereas Blu-ray 4K will likely not display anything above 1080p on most current 4K TVs when released. Why is this relevant? Just to illustrate that for any new technology to be successful in my opinion, instead of rushing things out, it is better to get your "standards" in order cross-vendor before releasing product..
+1000 !!

Isn't it a big snafu if we have Gen 1 amps that are HDMI 2.0 but Not HDCP 2.2?
petetherock is offline  
post #1619 of 54989 Old 07-21-2014, 06:18 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Nightlord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Southern Sweden
Posts: 2,610
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 856 Post(s)
Liked: 291
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post
It's near the beginning of the movie, just after the captain spots the French ship through his telescope. The enemy launch an attack on the ship and the captain gives the order to 'beat to quarters'. Following that, there is a scene where the action shifts to below decks and in that scene you can clearly hear crew members running about above decks. In a good system, you will hear their footsteps clattering on the wooden deck and the sound is clearly coming from 'above' you, even in a 5.1 system. The effect is exaggerated if you have Height speakers and use one of the upmixing algorithms such as PLIIz, DSX or Neo:X.

However, good though this is, and as I have said ad nauseam, Atmos is about much, much more than 'height effects'.

If you have Master and Commander, try the scene and see how it plays for you.
And for those who don't have the movie - for soundtrack purposes get the DVD not the BluRay... the bass is clipped on the latter.

( First 15 mins is my most used 'demo' for my small tvroom theater so far )
PoshFrosh likes this.

Codename - the Larch theater
Nightlord is offline  
post #1620 of 54989 Old 07-21-2014, 06:21 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
chi_guy50's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 3,561
Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2167 Post(s)
Liked: 2188
I am a bit befuddled by this discussion of the proper type of speaker for Atmos tops. I haven't seen any authoritative prescription yet, but is there any guidance to this point for in-ceiling speakers?

Assuming I will want a timbre-match with the rest of my system--and unless my manufacturer (Polk Audio) comes out with an Atmos-specific in-ceiling speaker in the next few months(!)--my options are going to be very limited.

Edit: Keith, I just saw your post 1617 above, which at least partially answers my concerns. Do you have any further guidance to offer?

Last edited by chi_guy50; 07-21-2014 at 06:25 AM.
chi_guy50 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