AVS Forum banner

21 - 40 of 438 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,339 Posts
I currently have in wall speakers (Polk rci55) that are being used as front heights. They were previously my L/R before the bookshelf speakers. See pic. I have on walls as rear surrounds but don't have an option for rear heights. If I upgrade to an Atmos avr will having just those two height speakers for atmos be useful? I can't do ceiling speakers either.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
217 Posts
I currently have in wall speakers (Polk rci55) that are being used as front heights. They were previously my L/R before the bookshelf speakers. See pic. I have on walls as rear surrounds but don't have an option for rear heights. If I upgrade to an Atmos avr will having just those two height speakers for atmos be useful? I can't do ceiling speakers either.
This is a perfect placement for front heights. I think that they will be useful for atmos. I currently have a similar non-atmos (Pliiz) configuration and I enjoy the change in front sound stage brought by front heights.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
980 Posts
Good to know, I'll try positioning my speakers as height. Should they be pointed directly at MLP? Or over the MLP?

Sent from my Note Edge
I experimented with having the speakers point straight over the MLP and also pointed towards (not directly) the MLP. Had both setups for a month each. TBH, I feel that this is a little more subjective and room dependent.

Having the speakers just pointed straight out made a more diffused soundfield, so often times it sounded like the whole ceiling was producing sound. This is great because when it "rains" in a movie (or whatever content), it really sounded like the whole ceiling was raining. It was "eerie" enough that I had to check my windows to see if it's raining outside, EVERY single time. :p

But there is one caveat, when it comes overhead panning scenes though - like an object flying overhead, this made the transition between the front and back (or vice versa) became a little too non-focused. Meaning I usually couldn't really tell with my eyes closed if the object was already behind me or not. Another example, if there was a bolt of lightning that comes from the overhead channels, it sounded like the whole ceiling was shooting bolts instead of from a certain area.

I found that the sweetspot in my room was to point the height speakers towards my MLP. Keyword here is "towards", so the speakers are just around a ballpark of 1 ft' or so directed towards my MLP. With this setup, I still get the sense of spaciousness up top while when need be, object effects that are made to directly go towards the MLP sounds articulate enough. It's not perfect, but it's damn good and in my room, the best I can do.

If I set it directly pointing to the MLP, what happens is that the height effects became quite localizable even if they sounded very accurate. This breaks the whole "cocoon soundstage" that I have in my room, where the bed layers don't sound like they form organically with the top layers.

Hope that helps.


If South Korea actually starts regular consumer ATSC 3.0 OTA broadcasting in early 2017 as planned, we should rapidly get details about the AVR audio 'interaction' with [draft standard compliant] ATSC 3.0 TVs--albeit equipped with MPEG-H immersive|interactive audio rather than Dolby AC-4 as is the US national plan. South Korean region variants of next year's AVR models will presumably be MPEG-H Audio and Dolby Atmos [and DTS:X] decode capable, whereas 'later' US|Canada region variants will likely feature Dolby AC-4 plus Atmos [and DTS:X] support. However I'm guessing recommendations for 5.x.2|5.x.4|7.x.2|7.x.4 immersive (TV+AVR) speaker setup will be the same for all regions . . . and with a wider immersive|interactive audio aware consumer population 'beyond traditional home theater owners' perhaps there might be better [researched] dialog about the pros and cons of height and ceiling speaker configs in varied room situations.


_
Good to know.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
317 Posts
Actually, since it's just settings, experiment, I feel that having them set as Tops sound best "in my room". Tops just seemed to give me slightly more discrete placement of sounds.

But... I have an Atmos only AVR that will never get DTS-X, and as stated above, Heights settings, work for all formats. Plus there was a "very" small difference in the sound, so even setting mine to heights would be a minimal compromise at best, once I upgrade AVR's.
Thanks. I wonder what is the difference in the two from the receiver point of view?

...Having the speakers just pointed straight out made a more diffused soundfield, so often times it sounded like the whole ceiling was producing sound. This is great because when it "rains" in a movie (or whatever content), it really sounded like the whole ceiling was raining. It was "eerie" enough that I had to check my windows to see if it's raining outside, EVERY single time. :p.....
Thanks for great response, I will know what to expect when I start testing/

My Atmos speakers should be here today. I will try them from the shelf pointing up, maybe they will sound like top speakers since they are closer to the ceiling.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,349 Posts
Thanks. I wonder what is the difference in the two from the receiver point of view?
The difference has to do with the fact that Top designations are the, for lack of a better term, default, when it comes to speaker locations, and sound positioning.

From the experimenting that people have done, when using TF/TR designations, the overhead sounds were more discreet to each speaker, esp with Front and back transitioning. When using FH/RH designations the AVR would actually use both at the same time, to try and place sounds where the Tops would be placed.

Example, a sound that should be near the TFR(right) speaker, would be played by the TFR, but when using Height designations, the AVR would use both the FHR & RHR simultaneously to try and place that sound in the TFR position. Sometimes this sounds better, sometimes not, it will depend on your preferences and your room.

And remember....
This is only with Atmos, DTS-X uses Height designations....

(This is where it gets more confusing)
Dolbys angles/locations for Top speaker placement, are the exact locations for what DTS calls Heights, same placement, just different labeling, that's it.

Why.... because of their competition with Dolby.... They just want you to choose one or the other, and not have it be easy to switch back and forth.... Heaven forbid, it should be easier for us.
Dirty, got a little ranty...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
980 Posts
The difference has to do with the fact that Top designations are the, for lack of a better term, default, when it comes to speaker locations, and sound positioning.

From the experimenting that people have done, when using TF/TR designations, the overhead sounds were more discreet to each speaker, esp with Front and back transitioning. When using FH/RH designations the AVR would actually use both at the same time, to try and place sounds where the Tops would be placed.

Example, a sound that should be near the TFR(right) speaker, would be played by the TFR, but when using Height designations, the AVR would use both the FHR & RHR simultaneously to try and place that sound in the TFR position. Sometimes this sounds better, sometimes not, it will depend on your preferences and your room.

And remember....
This is only with Atmos, DTS-X uses Height designations....

(This is where it gets more confusing)
Dolbys angles/locations for Top speaker placement, are the exact locations for what DTS calls Heights, same placement, just different labeling, that's it.

Why.... because of their competition with Dolby.... They just want you to choose one or the other, and not have it be easy to switch back and forth.... Heaven forbid, it should be easier for us.
Dirty, got a little ranty...
This is why I think the best compromise and the best sweetspot is to just have height speakers in the traditional height presence locations. At least, this is for most consumer home theater builds.

Of course, somewhere within the executive chain of Dolby HQ, they want all movies to just use Atmos and forget about DTS:X entirely. In THEIR own perfect world then, their suggested setup(s) are all that matters.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,395 Posts
This is why I think the best compromise and the best sweetspot is to just have height speakers in the traditional height presence locations. At least, this is for most consumer home theater builds.

Of course, somewhere within the executive chain of Dolby HQ, they want all movies to just use Atmos and forget about DTS:X entirely. In THEIR own perfect world then, their suggested setup(s) are all that matters.



__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Source: March 2016 Dolby AC-4 Presentation for SMPTE (link-to-pdf)


I guess it seems possible in the future we might also see extension substreams for Dolby AC-4 on TrueHD BDs in addition to those now used for Dolby Atmos...?! :cool:


_
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,244 Posts
When I setup my Denon X6300 today, in one menu of the Audyssey setup it asked me if I had

Height Speakers
Ceiling Speakers

Then in another menu it asked if I'm using 'Atmos Enabled' Speakers. Which look like those tower adders.

I want my Front Height (and eventually Rear Height) to operate as my 'Atmos' speakers. In the setup I marked them as Front Height. Will they receive the Atmos information on Atmos movies?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,349 Posts
When I setup my Denon X6300 today, in one menu of the Audyssey setup it asked me if I had

Height Speakers
Ceiling Speakers

Then in another menu it asked if I'm using 'Atmos Enabled' Speakers. Which look like those tower adders.

I want my Front Height (and eventually Rear Height) to operate as my 'Atmos' speakers. In the setup I marked them as Front Height. Will they receive the Atmos information on Atmos movies?
Yes, Height or Ceiling will receive the Atmos full range signal, Atmos enabled is the restricted signal for upfiring speakers or modules.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,008 Posts
Glad I stumbled upon this thread.
I'm thinking of adding front heights because frankly I don't feel like putting in ceiling speakers.
Current setup is as follows:
7.2
Denon x6200w
Outlaw 5000 running bed layer
Denon running rear surrounds
Two Psa subs
Mains: Def Tech sm55's
Center: Def Tech Pc2000
Surrounds: Def Tech 8040bp's
Rear surrounds: Def Tech pm1000's

I have a spare pair of Def Tech pm800's laying around and was thinking of using them for front heights. My question is should i swap those smaller 800's to rear surround duty and use the 1000's for the front heights, or just use the 800's?

Would it make any noticeable difference either way?
Pic of where I will mount them. Excuse poor lighting etc lol



Pm1000's in current location
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,349 Posts
Glad I stumbled upon this thread.
I'm thinking of adding front heights because frankly I don't feel like putting in ceiling speakers.
Current setup is as follows:
7.2
Denon x6200w
Outlaw 5000 running bed layer
Denon running rear surrounds
Two Psa subs
Mains: Def Tech sm55's
Center: Def Tech Pc2000
Surrounds: Def Tech 8040bp's
Rear surrounds: Def Tech pm1000's

I have a spare pair of Def Tech pm800's laying around and was thinking of using them for front heights. My question is should i swap those smaller 800's to rear surround duty and use the 1000's for the front heights, or just use the 800's?

Would it make any noticeable difference either way?
Pic of where I will mount them. Excuse poor lighting etc lol



Pm1000's in current location
As a DefTech person I can say that I think you will notice a difference and should swap them, even when comparing the Overhead layer to the Bed Layer, in general I would always try and use my better speaker in the more forward positions, simply because of the way human hearing works and we are much more likely to hear subtle differences in front or to the side of us than behind us.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,008 Posts
As a DefTech person I can say that I think you will notice a difference and should swap them, even when comparing the Overhead layer to the Bed Layer, in general I would always try and use my better speaker in the more forward positions, simply because of the way human hearing works and we are much more likely to hear subtle differences in front or to the side of us than behind us.
Thank you kind sir, easy enough to do so I'll go with that
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,008 Posts
Ok, so I'll be installing the front heights tomorrow. Quick question, when watching a movie with native atmos, do you prefer the Neural:X upmixing or atmos?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,837 Posts
bumping this thread...

i currently have a denon x3300 and a 5.1 setup. i am planning to buy 2 bookshelf speakers and set them as freight height (only place i can put additional speakers since the living room is a 20+ ft. vaulted ceiling). will my existing 5.1 plus the 2 height speakers roughly 3-4 ft above the front towers be sufficient to gain additional use of the last 2 channels on my AVR?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
354 Posts
bumping this thread...

i currently have a denon x3300 and a 5.1 setup. i am planning to buy 2 bookshelf speakers and set them as freight height (only place i can put additional speakers since the living room is a 20+ ft. vaulted ceiling). will my existing 5.1 plus the 2 height speakers roughly 3-4 ft above the front towers be sufficient to gain additional use of the last 2 channels on my AVR?
I'm in the same boat. Although I was looking to install the front heights closer to the ceiling (not vaulted). My front heights would be around 36-48" higher than my L/R's. My receiver only supports two atmos speakers, so I would only be able to run the fronts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,349 Posts
bumping this thread...

i currently have a denon x3300 and a 5.1 setup. i am planning to buy 2 bookshelf speakers and set them as freight height (only place i can put additional speakers since the living room is a 20+ ft. vaulted ceiling). will my existing 5.1 plus the 2 height speakers roughly 3-4 ft above the front towers be sufficient to gain additional use of the last 2 channels on my AVR?


I'm in the same boat. Although I was looking to install the front heights closer to the ceiling (not vaulted). My front heights would be around 36-48" higher than my L/R's. My receiver only supports two atmos speakers, so I would only be able to run the fronts.

While only having 9' ceilings, I felt like having front heights was an improvement (I'm thinking the effect with a vaulted ceiling would be even more noticeable).
And then going from PLIIZ w/heights to Atmos with FH, and the same exact locations, was another step up from there, if for nothing else than the more discrete nature of Atmos and object placement.

When talking about using Heights only, the normal suggestion for a x.x.2 setup, would be use them as TM placed in the side wall, at ceiling height, within the plane of the TM angles.

But honestly, it's going to depend a lot on the content, while Side Wall (TM) placement will give you a better feeling of overall space and overhead effect, FH mounting will give you a more discrete placement of sounds that pan with the entire scope of the screen, up, down, across and diagonally. It may simply be a case of, if you can, experiment with both, before permanent mounting.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,837 Posts
While only having 9' ceilings, I felt like having front heights was an improvement (I'm thinking the effect with a vaulted ceiling would be even more noticeable).
And then going from PLIIZ w/heights to Atmos with FH, and the same exact locations, was another step up from there, if for nothing else than the more discrete nature of Atmos and object placement.

When talking about using Heights only, the normal suggestion for a x.x.2 setup, would be use them as TM placed in the side wall, at ceiling height, within the plane of the TM angles.

But honestly, it's going to depend a lot on the content, while Side Wall (TM) placement will give you a better feeling of overall space and overhead effect, FH mounting will give you a more discrete placement of sounds that pan with the entire scope of the screen, up, down, across and diagonally. It may simply be a case of, if you can, experiment with both, before permanent mounting.
cool, i'll give it a shot, if i was crazy and wanted to do side mounting it would take more effort to wire cables, etc. for non-Atmos, i assume my x3300 can take standard 5.1 DD from Directv broadcasts and simulate atmos, or at least a PLII to make use of front height?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,349 Posts
cool, i'll give it a shot, if i was crazy and wanted to do side mounting it would take more effort to wire cables, etc. for non-Atmos, i assume my x3300 can take standard 5.1 DD from Directv broadcasts and simulate atmos, or at least a PLII to make use of front height?
I'm not familiar with the x3300, but yes, if it's not Atmos capable then it should have PLIIZ w/Heights, if it is Atmos or DTS-X capable, their upmixers will make use of those speakers with non Atmos/DTS-X content.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
354 Posts
While only having 9' ceilings, I felt like having front heights was an improvement (I'm thinking the effect with a vaulted ceiling would be even more noticeable).
And then going from PLIIZ w/heights to Atmos with FH, and the same exact locations, was another step up from there, if for nothing else than the more discrete nature of Atmos and object placement.

When talking about using Heights only, the normal suggestion for a x.x.2 setup, would be use them as TM placed in the side wall, at ceiling height, within the plane of the TM angles.

But honestly, it's going to depend a lot on the content, while Side Wall (TM) placement will give you a better feeling of overall space and overhead effect, FH mounting will give you a more discrete placement of sounds that pan with the entire scope of the screen, up, down, across and diagonally. It may simply be a case of, if you can, experiment with both, before permanent mounting.
My current setup could not use side placement height speakers. That is unless they are only around a foot in front of my surrounds and angled toward the middle of the room or my MLP. I think front heights would overall work better as I typically mix everything up using Neural X.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16 Posts
Tagging for future reference/questions. So glad I found this thread, as I've been trying to decide just how I'm going to install additional speakers to take advantage of Atmos/DTS-X on my new Marantz SR7010. Was going to start with Atmos add-on up-firing speakers, but after reading this thread, I'm going with front (and eventually rear) heights. I currently have a 7.1 setup. Until I get a separate 2-channel amp in order to run 11 speakers, would it be better to run 7.1.2 or 5.1.4 with my existing 9-channel AVR?
 
21 - 40 of 438 Posts
Top