AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews (https://www.avsforum.com/forum/)
-   Receivers, Amps, and Processors (https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/)
-   -   The official Auro 3D thread (home theater version) (https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/1682498-official-auro-3d-thread-home-theater-version.html)

johnty 09-14-2014 05:19 PM

Auro in the car
 
Auro had a 9.1 system installed in a Jeep at CEDIA. Much like their demo in the High Performance Audio room, it was quite impressive. Lots of spaciousness and ATMOSphere. First production models will be available in 2015 from a German car maker, others have signed up. Upmixing will be part of the head unit's Auro feature set so any music source will benefit.

I had a long talk with the Auro rep who was responsible for both auto and consumer AVR Auro integration. There should be announcements before Christmas from some of the major players for product that will have both Auro and ATMOS decoders. It was also intimated that next year, most AVR's will have both options. No details on exactly how that will happen but my initial plan to upgrade now to a new Denon receiver has been cancelled. I want the capabilities of both formats and can only afford to upgrade once.

westmd 09-15-2014 02:40 AM

19 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by thebland (Post 27358330)
Auro upmixing is a major improvement over 7.1, PL IIz, Neo X upmixing. As I scroll through modes, the Auro is far superior. If ATMOS upmixing is as good, you'll be very happy. All else seems flat comparatively.

The Datasat gives a scale range of 1-15 for amount of aggressiveness or envelopment plus you can input the room 'size' for even more (or less) effect (Small, Medium, Large, Voice). I chose 'medium' and 6/15 on Auro envelopment.

You wrote over in the Atmos thread that you do not have a VOG installed. As my ceiling is only 7.2 feet high I am also a little bit worried as I would only have about 4 feet distance to the vog speaker. Do you have a center height installed!

dragonleepenn 09-15-2014 04:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by westmd (Post 27421418)
You wrote over in the Atmos thread that you do not have a VOG installed. As my ceiling is only 7.2 feet high I am also a little bit worried as I would only have about 4 feet distance to the vog speaker. Do you have a center height installed!

If you can recess a speaker into the ceiling you'd have a little more distance for a vog. But even if not I think a vog above would still provide the intended affect. In my room the distance is only around
four feet ceiling to my head at my rear seats which are on a riser. I find it to sound just fine. No over whelming of sound being poured down on my head. Of course my setup has no Auro yet,but I have the denon 5200 avr Atmos and the results are satisfying . I recessed
DIY cabinets into the ceiling cavity x4 overhead and another pair closer to the front area for a total of six, this last pair is on ceiling and not recessed however in line with the rest. My ceiling presented
Some issues that I was able to over come by building an angled cabinet. So right now I have six ceiling speakers even thou only four are required.in case later a processor comes along from denon or marantz that will do rear,middle and front also Auro.



PeterV

thebland 09-15-2014 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by westmd (Post 27421418)
You wrote over in the Atmos thread that you do not have a VOG installed. As my ceiling is only 7.2 feet high I am also a little bit worried as I would only have about 4 feet distance to the vog speaker. Do you have a center height installed!

Yes. Front, rear and side HEIGHTs.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/imageh...a18200ac9d.jpg



https://www.avsforum.com/forum/imageh...a181ff407b.jpg

LDM 09-15-2014 07:53 AM

I'm not sure if this was answered (a lot to read already in this thread..), but Auro 3D upmixing does support 5.1 with 2 front height, and 7.1 with 2 front height (called 7.1 With Height, and 9.1 With Height respectively). These are standard Auro formats.

westmd 09-15-2014 08:03 AM

19 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by LDM (Post 27424506)
I'm not sure if this was answered (a lot to read already in this thread..), but Auro 3D upmixing does support 5.1 with 2 front height, and 7.1 with 2 front height (called 7.1 With Height, and 9.1 With Height respectively). These are standard Auro formats.

Auro's minimum setup is 9.1 which is a standard 5.1 bed and a pair of height channels above your mains and above the side surrounds. That is necessary to create the height layer. I don't assume Auro would work with only one pair of heights. Even for the upmixing.

LDM 09-15-2014 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by westmd (Post 27424802)
Auro's minimum setup is 9.1 which is a standard 5.1 bed and a pair of height channels above your mains and above the side surrounds. That is necessary to create the height layer. I don't assume Auro would work with only one pair of heights. Even for the upmixing.

This is true for the output format to be considered "3D", but the system will accept to upmix to 5/7.1 with 2 height in front.

dragonleepenn 09-15-2014 11:19 AM

Yes. Front, rear and side HEIGHTs.



Hi Jeff,(thebland)
Why did'nt you use the VOG? Or do you intend to?



PeterV

CINERAMAX 09-16-2014 04:46 AM

2 Attachment(s)

maikeldepotter 09-16-2014 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LDM (Post 27425538)
This is true for the output format to be considered "3D", but the system will accept to upmix to 5/7.1 with 2 height in front.

In addition tot that, in absence of surround height speakers 'the system' can also down-mix native Auro3D content by adding the two surround heights channels to the surrounds. At least that is what I was told by an Auro guy a few months ago during a demonstration of the Auriga receiver. This was a reply to my question whether you could start enyoing Auro3D with only the front heights to begin with. He advice me to not do that and go for a full Auro set-up, but technically it was possible ("it is a processor, of course it can do that" was his remark).

maikeldepotter 09-16-2014 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dragonleepenn (Post 27430698)
Yes. Front, rear and side HEIGHTs.



Hi Jeff,(thebland)
Why did'nt you use the VOG? Or do you intend to?



PeterV

In a 7.1.6 set-up, the pair of side heights can be used by Auro to create a phantom VOG. That is what I would do, and which was also suggested by others on this forum.

westmd 09-16-2014 09:04 AM

19 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by CINERAMAX (Post 27452706)

WOW, do they ship this stuff with the Auro update for the DATASAT?:)

westmd 09-16-2014 09:07 AM

19 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by maikeldepotter (Post 27457458)
In a 7.1.6 set-up, the pair of side heights can be used by Auro to create a phantom VOG. That is what I would do, and which was also suggested by others on this forum.

As I will have a row of in-ceiling speakers in front of me, I would wonder if I can make them create a phatom VOG?

smurraybhm 09-16-2014 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CINERAMAX (Post 27452706)

At least now we know why everyone thought the helicopter flyover was better with Auro. Give it to 7-11 on location selection or to the pot shop for going in next to a 7-11. The only way to experience 3-D sound :rolleyes:

maikeldepotter 09-16-2014 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by westmd (Post 27457634)
As I will have a row of in-ceiling speakers in front of me, I would wonder if I can make them create a phatom VOG?

If the phantom VOG has an elevation angle of at least 75 degrees I would certainly give it a try.

westmd 09-16-2014 09:57 AM

19 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by maikeldepotter (Post 27458154)
If the phantom VOG has an elevation angle of at least 75 degrees I would certainly give it a try.

Problem is they won't have 75deg! As they will function for Atmos as top front they will have between 30 and 55deg!

maikeldepotter 09-16-2014 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by westmd (Post 27459154)
Problem is they won't have 75deg! As they will function for Atmos as top front they will have between 30 and 55deg!

If you put the Atmos top fronts at 40 deg or lower, you can use them as Auro front heights.

Summary of integration options between Atmos and Auro as per my suggestion:
Atmos elevated 30-40 degrees -> Auro front heights.
Atmos elevated 40-75 degrees -> no use for Auro
Atmos elevated 75-105 degrees -> Auro (phantom) VOG
Atmos elevated 105-140 degrees -> no use for Auro
Atmos elevated 140-150 degrees -> Auro surround heights

Comment added later: This suggestion is based upon my erroneous assumption that the elevation angles, as recommended by Atmos on the one hand and Auro on the other, can be compared, which they cannot since their definition seems to differ, as explained in my later post.

westmd 09-16-2014 12:41 PM

19 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by maikeldepotter (Post 27461594)
If you put the Atmos top fronts at 40 deg or lower, you can use them as Auro front heights.

Summary of integration options between Atmos and Auro as per my suggestion:
Atmos elevated 30-40 degrees -> Auro front heights.
Atmos elevated 40-75 degrees -> no use for Auro
Atmos elevated 75-105 degrees -> Auro (phantom) VOG
Atmos elevated 105-140 degrees -> no use for Auro
Atmos elevated 140-150 degrees -> Auro surround heights

That is an interesting proposal! What are the Auro angles based on?What I don't understand are the angles for surround heights. As these are supposed to be between 90 and 110 degrees to the MLP and the corresponding height is supposed to be directly above the surround speaker normally between 90deg and 110deg should be okay for them. Wouldn't 140-150deg be too far back?

maikeldepotter 09-16-2014 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by westmd (Post 27464178)
That is an interesting proposal! What are the Auro angles based on?What I don't understand are the angles for surround heights. As these are supposed to be between 90 and 110 degrees to the MLP and the corresponding height is supposed to be directly above the surround speaker normally between 90deg and 110deg should be okay for them. Wouldn't 140-150deg be too far back?

The angles in my post are not referring to azimuth but to elevation (like the cross-section graphic displays of Atmos speaker lay-outs in the Denon manual)

westmd 09-16-2014 01:07 PM

19 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by maikeldepotter (Post 27464842)
The angles in my post are referring to the elevation, not azimuth (like the cross-section graphic displays of Atmos speaker lay-outs in the Denon manual)

That is correct but wouldn't at least a 90deg azimuth side speaker result in a 90deg elevated top speaker?

RichB 09-16-2014 01:19 PM

Audioholics has a new article: Auro-3D® Immersive Sound Interview with Wilfried Van Baelen
The article has a good deal of technical information and a competitors take on Atmos and DTS-UHD.

http://www.audioholics.com/audio-tec...o-3d-interview

- Rich

maikeldepotter 09-16-2014 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by westmd (Post 27464930)
That is correct but wouldn't at least a 90deg azimuth side speaker result in a 90deg elevated top speaker?

I am not sure if I get your point. You can in principle, practical considerations aside, place a side surround height speaker at any elevation angle you want. No?

maikeldepotter 09-16-2014 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maikeldepotter (Post 27465586)
I am not sure if I get your point. You can in principle, practical considerations aside, place a side surround height speaker at any elevation angle you want. No?

I may get your point on second thought. Confusion is created by the difference between cross-sectional elevation angle on the one hand, and the elevation angle with the MLP as reference point on the other hand. An elevated speaker placed above a side surround at 90 degrees azimuth has a 'cross-sectional elevation angle' of 90 degrees (what you were referring to) irrespective of the 'elevation angle from MLP position' (that I was referring to). I interpret the Atmos elevation angles as presented in the Denon manual as 'elevation angle from MLP position'. Please correct me if I am wrong.

westmd 09-16-2014 04:22 PM

19 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by maikeldepotter (Post 27469801)
I may get your point on second thought. Confusion is created by the difference between cross-sectional elevation angle on the one hand, and the elevation angle with the MLP as reference point on the other hand. An elevated speaker placed above a side surround at 90 degrees azimuth has a 'cross-sectional elevation angle' of 90 degrees (what you were referring to) irrespective of the 'elevation angle from MLP position' (that I was referring to). I interpret the Atmos elevation angles as presented in the Denon manual as 'elevation angle from MLP position'. Please correct me if I am wrong.

I was only thinking in elevation angles from the MLP as this is the basis from the Denon diagram, and now the even better Dolby Atmos paper on speaker placement. So if a speaker is placed directly at the side of the MLP the azimuth is 90deg with reference to the center speaker. Now if I would put a surround height in top of that speaker then in regards to MLP is stays with 90 deg elevation angle, because it is directly above MLP!

maikeldepotter 09-17-2014 02:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by westmd (Post 27470593)
I was only thinking in elevation angles from the MLP as this is the basis from the Denon diagram, and now the even better Dolby Atmos paper on speaker placement. So if a speaker is placed directly at the side of the MLP the azimuth is 90deg with reference to the center speaker. Now if I would put a surround height in top of that speaker then in regards to MLP is stays with 90 deg elevation angle, because it is directly above MLP!

You are correct. The Denon diagram shows a median section of the room at MLP position.The corresponding definition of elevation angle therefore differs from the one Auro uses in its spherical diagram, which is the elevation angle you get by taking a segment section following the azimuth of the speaker. My earlier presentation of Atmos angles which can be used for Auro does not take this difference in account. It is obviously more complicated than that.

Last night, I have been thinking about a better way to find the best compromise between Atmos and Auro speaker placement. It involves defining speaker placement with two variables, in a way similar to specifying a given location on earth: by degree of longitude (longitudal elevation, like in the Denon diagram) and degree of latitude (cross elevation, like in a cross section of the room at MLP position). Both azimuth and segment elevation (following azimuth of the speaker as in the Auro spherical diagram) are resultants of these two variables.

Now, as an illustration, back to the example of the side surrounds placed at an azimuth of 90 degrees. If you are putting elevated speakers above them using the exact same azimuth, the longitudal elevation will indeed be 90 degrees. We now take a typical room with 8 feet ceiling, a MLP at 3 feet from the floor, and front speakers 10 feet apart. Following the Atmos guideline to place top speakers in line with the fronts, the resulting cross elevation will be 45 degrees (5 feet to the side, and 5 feet up). In this case, since at 90 degrees the cross section is the same as the segment section, the segment elevation is also 45 degrees. This is presumably a bit too high to be used as surround heights for Auro. In this situation the compromise is to be found by either placing the top speakers a bit outside the Atmos recommended front-to-back line, or to placing them further to the back along the front-to-back line. I would in this case choose the latter and move the side surrounds also back from 90 to 110 degrees (see also Auro 13.1 speaker configuration).

Wookii 09-17-2014 02:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by westmd (Post 27470593)
I was only thinking in elevation angles from the MLP as this is the basis from the Denon diagram, and now the even better Dolby Atmos paper on speaker placement. So if a speaker is placed directly at the side of the MLP the azimuth is 90deg with reference to the center speaker. Now if I would put a surround height in top of that speaker then in regards to MLP is stays with 90 deg elevation angle, because it is directly above MLP!

Quote:

Originally Posted by maikeldepotter (Post 27481497)
You are correct. The Denon diagram shows a longitudinal section of the room at MLP position.The corresponding definition of elevation angle therefore differs from the one Auro uses in its spherical diagram, which is the elevation angle you get by taking a segment section following the azimuth of the speaker. My earlier presentation of Atmos angles which can be used for Auro does not take this difference in account. It is obviously more complicated than that.

Last night, I have been thinking about a better way to find the best compromise between Atmos and Auro speaker placement. It involves defining speaker placement with two variables, in a way similar to specifying a given location on earth: by degree of longitude (longitudal elevation, like in the Denon diagram) and degree of latitude (cross elevation, like in a cross section of the room at MLP position). Both azimuth and segment elevation (following azimuth of the speaker as in the Auro spherical diagram) are resultants of these two variables.

Now, as an illustration, back to the example of the side surrounds placed at an azimuth of 90 degrees. If you are putting elevated speakers above them using the exact same azimuth, the longitudal elevation will indeed be 90 degrees. We now take a typical room with 8 feet ceiling, a MLP at 3 feet from the floor, and front speakers 10 feet apart. Following the Atmos guideline to place top speakers in line with the fronts, the resulting cross elevation will be 45 degrees (5 feet to the side, and 5 feet up). In this case, since at 90 degrees the cross section is the same as the segment section, the segment elevation is also 45 degrees. This is presumably a bit too high to be used as surround heights for Auro. In this situation the compromise is to be found by either placing the top speakers a bit outside the Atmos recommended front-to-back line, or to placing them further to the back along the front-to-back line. I would in this case choose the latter and move the side surrounds also back from 90 to 110 degrees (see also Auro 13.1 speaker configuration).

I think you guys need to do diagrams for us - these things are hard to follow in words! ;)

I don't think, for a normal dispersion speakers, the 45 degrees you suggest, would be an issue at all for Auro3D.

maikeldepotter 09-17-2014 03:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wookii (Post 27481561)
I think you guys need to do diagrams for us - these things are hard to follow in words! ;)

I don't think, for a normal dispersion speakers, the 45 degrees you suggest, would be an issue at all for Auro3D.

You are right, these things are as hard to follow in words as they are to put in those same words. Illustrative diagrams would be:
- the sectional display with elevation angles from the Denon manual.
- the 3D sphere with the head in it from the Auro3d website.

As far as acceptable elevation angles for Auro3D are concerned, I am referring to Inventor Van Baelen's statement that the elevation angle of the upper layer should be between 25 and 35 degrees, with a defined optimum at 30 degrees. Also, the auro white paper and drawings presented at both the auro3d and stormaudio website show the upper layer at 30 degrees, which BTW was later changed, without an explanation that I know of, to 40 degrees. Hence my statement that 45 degrees would be pushing the boundary a bit too far.....?

Wookii 09-17-2014 03:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maikeldepotter (Post 27481762)
You are right, these things are as hard to follow in words as they are to put in those same words. Illustrative diagrams would be:
- the sectional display with elevation angles from the Denon manual.
- the 3D sphere with the head in it from the Auro3d website.

As far as acceptable elevation angles for Auro3D are concerned, I am referring to Inventor Van Baelen's statement that the elevation angle of the upper layer should be between 25 and 35 degrees, with a defined optimum at 30 degrees. Also, the auro white paper and drawings presented at both the auro3d and stormaudio website show the upper layer at 30 degrees, which BTW was later changed, without an explanation that I know of, to 40 degrees. Hence my statement that 45 degrees would be pushing the boundary a bit too far.....?

My surrounds will be at around 41 degrees on the vertical, the system I have heard running had them (at a guess) at around a similar angle, perhaps slightly more.

I do feel that, in practice, and from my own limited experience of listening to the Auro upmixer, the system is so immersive in the sound it produces, that there is a fair degree of flexibility in vertical speaker placement, and I would wager that most people, in most standard width and height domestic rooms would struggle to tell the difference between a system that had the side height surrounds at 45 degrees and one that had them at 30 degrees.

westmd 09-17-2014 10:58 AM

19 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wookii (Post 27481866)
My surrounds will be at around 41 degrees on the vertical, the system I have heard running had them (at a guess) at around a similar angle, perhaps slightly more.

I do feel that, in practice, and from my own limited experience of listening to the Auro upmixer, the system is so immersive in the sound it produces, that there is a fair degree of flexibility in vertical speaker placement, and I would wager that most people, in most standard width and height domestic rooms would struggle to tell the difference between a system that had the side height surrounds at 45 degrees and one that had them at 30 degrees.

I took a little bit more simplistic approacg for an Atmos/Auro combo which I send to Auro themselves for an assessment. Here is what I send:

'I have a Jamo 7.2 THX setup, I would actually like to stay with Jamo speakers to minimize the risk of any timbre problems.
I have the following idea. For the front height speakers as well as the front height center I would like to install three of the Jamo IC680 FG LCR.

I think that speaker allows me enough tilting of high and midrange membrane to fulfill the height soeakers duty for Auro.

Now for the back I have to compromise between Atmos ( wide dispersion) and Auro (direct aiming). I would assume that the above speakers would also work well for Auro, but I see the risk of them being too much pointed for Atmos. Therefore alternatively I could use the Jamo 608 FG.

Do you think that this will be precise enough for Auro or would you rather use the IC608FG LCR also in the back?'


Auro's reply was:

'To answer your technical question regarding the speakers, I think your proposed solution will work just fine.
It would be great if you could send us feedback on your own experiences once you have installed it.'


So I do think there is a certain degree of freedom also with Auro and maybe we should not worry too much!

Wookii 09-18-2014 01:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by westmd (Post 27490738)
I took a little bit more simplistic approacg for an Atmos/Auro combo which I send to Auro themselves for an assessment. Here is what I send:

'I have a Jamo 7.2 THX setup, I would actually like to stay with Jamo speakers to minimize the risk of any timbre problems.
I have the following idea. For the front height speakers as well as the front height center I would like to install three of the Jamo IC680 FG LCR.

I think that speaker allows me enough tilting of high and midrange membrane to fulfill the height soeakers duty for Auro.

Now for the back I have to compromise between Atmos ( wide dispersion) and Auro (direct aiming). I would assume that the above speakers would also work well for Auro, but I see the risk of them being too much pointed for Atmos. Therefore alternatively I could use the Jamo 608 FG.

Do you think that this will be precise enough for Auro or would you rather use the IC608FG LCR also in the back?'


Auro's reply was:

'To answer your technical question regarding the speakers, I think your proposed solution will work just fine.
It would be great if you could send us feedback on your own experiences once you have installed it.'


So I do think there is a certain degree of freedom also with Auro and maybe we should not worry too much!

Agreed, I think it is all too easy for us to split hairs on these things.

That said I'm not sure why you feel that the Jamo LCR speakers would not be ideal for Atmos. The requirement for wide dispersion in ceiling speakers in the Atmos spec is only for people using standard downward firing in ceiling speakers. These naturally need to be wide dispersion because they are downward firing, and the MLP could potentially be a fair way off axis. The 'ideal' speaker for any of the surround sound formats will be one that fires straight at the MLP. A downward firing off axis in ceiling speaker is a compromise, which is why Dolby has specified they should be wide dispersion, in order to minimise that compromise as much as possible.

If I were you, I would use your Jamo LCR speakers all the way around, and point them all at the MLP.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:38 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.