AVS Forum banner

1921 - 1940 of 4251 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,114 Posts
Optimal ranges for DTS:X overheads

As we know the intended/ideal positions for DTS:X overhead speakers, is there in addition any information available on the optimal ranges of the DTS:X overhead speakers in terms of azimuth and elevation tolerances?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28,982 Posts
Since you know the rendering assumptions, use your own common sense to judge how much deviation is tolerable for you. What if DTS said, for example, that you could place a speaker 30 degrees away from its intended location. Would you then do that?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,114 Posts
Since you know the rendering assumptions, use your own common sense to judge how much deviation is tolerable for you.
Here you go:

For Front Heights:
Azimuth: +/- 10 degrees
(Radial) Elevation: +/- 10 degrees

For Rear Heights:
Azimuth: +/- 15 degrees
(Radial) Elevation: +/- 15 degrees
 
  • Like
Reactions: sdurani

·
Registered
Joined
·
217 Posts
I have been experimenting with my 5.1.4 system for about a month now. A refresher, room is 12.5' long x 11' wide. Row of three theater seating about 2' in front of back wall. Rear surrounds hanging on back wall at ear height, towers at front of room about a foot away from the front wall. For the .4 I have front height speakers mounted on the front wall up high by the ceiling and the same width as the front speakers and then a pair of in ceiling speakers mounted about 3.5' in front of the main listening position. The height speakers are designated as FH/RH (even though the in ceiling speakers are in the top middle position) so this means I have no height speakers behind me. This is where my rub is and why I'm trying to decide how to change it. There is something lacking. When I watch Spectre with Neural X engaged and watch the helicopter scene or I play the helicopter demo or the 747 takeoff demo on the September 2015 Dolby Atmos disc, it falls short. It sounds OK but the sounds pan around the room in front of me and then all of a sudden appear in the surrounds at ear level. There is a hole from the sound going from the front heights (to the rear heights which are really in the top middle position) to the surrounds. I think it would probably sound a whole lot better to put a pair of height speakers behind me.

My dilemma is this. Should I leave the front height speakers where they are, unhook the in ceiling that are in the top middle position, and then put up another set of bookshelf speakers in the rear height position on the rear wall up next to the ceiling? I like this idea with a couple of exceptions. First, The seating is only a couple feet away from the back wall which means that the RH speakers wouldn't be pointed directly at the seating, but rather slightly over it and out into the room. I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing, though and you would still be able to tell that the sound is coming from behind you. My other problem with this configuration is that, while the FH/RH setup and designation is just what DTS: X calls for, mine would be sorely out of spec angle wise for Atmos.

My second choice is to do away with the front heights I have now and use the in ceilings for TF or FH (however I want to designate them in the AVR). The in ceilings are pretty much within spec (about 50 degrees) for TF Atmos speaker position. Then I could put a set of in ceiling speakers in the ceiling right next to the rear wall of the room. The good is that both sets of height speakers would be down firing and I'd have a set behind me. The bad is that the TR wouldn't be anywhere near Atmos spec and there would only be about five and a half feet separation between the TF and TR speakers.

Before anyone asks or suggests it, the seating isn't moving and neither are the in ceiling speakers. When I installed the in ceiling speakers I built enclosures in the rafters out of 3/4" MDF and I'm not moving those and I don't want to repair holes in the ceiling only to cut others. The room is configured as it's going to stay and I'm just looking for suggestions on what might work best for the RH as well as what FH configuration to use with them.

I'll throw up a couple of pictures to show where the seating and surround speakers are as well as a sketch of the top view of my room with the existing in ceiling speakers noted. My existing FH speakers are in location "1".
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
430 Posts
I have been experimenting with my 5.1.4 system for about a month now. A refresher, room is 12.5' long x 11' wide. Row of three theater seating about 2' in front of back wall. Rear surrounds hanging on back wall at ear height, towers at front of room about a foot away from the front wall. For the .4 I have front height speakers mounted on the front wall up high by the ceiling and the same width as the front speakers and then a pair of in ceiling speakers mounted about 3.5' in front of the main listening position. The height speakers are designated as FH/RH (even though the in ceiling speakers are in the top middle position) so this means I have no height speakers behind me. This is where my rub is and why I'm trying to decide how to change it. There is something lacking. When I watch Spectre with Neural X engaged and watch the helicopter scene or I play the helicopter demo or the 747 takeoff demo on the September 2015 Dolby Atmos disc, it falls short. It sounds OK but the sounds pan around the room in front of me and then all of a sudden appear in the surrounds at ear level. There is a hole from the sound going from the front heights (to the rear heights which are really in the top middle position) to the surrounds. I think it would probably sound a whole lot better to put a pair of height speakers behind me.

My dilemma is this. Should I leave the front height speakers where they are, unhook the in ceiling that are in the top middle position, and then put up another set of bookshelf speakers in the rear height position on the rear wall up next to the ceiling? I like this idea with a couple of exceptions. First, The seating is only a couple feet away from the back wall which means that the RH speakers wouldn't be pointed directly at the seating, but rather slightly over it and out into the room. I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing, though and you would still be able to tell that the sound is coming from behind you. My other problem with this configuration is that, while the FH/RH setup and designation is just what DTS: X calls for, mine would be sorely out of spec angle wise for Atmos.

My second choice is to do away with the front heights I have now and use the in ceilings for TF or FH (however I want to designate them in the AVR). The in ceilings are pretty much within spec (about 50 degrees) for TF Atmos speaker position. Then I could put a set of in ceiling speakers in the ceiling right next to the rear wall of the room. The good is that both sets of height speakers would be down firing and I'd have a set behind me. The bad is that the TR wouldn't be anywhere near Atmos spec and there would only be about five and a half feet separation between the TF and TR speakers.

Before anyone asks or suggests it, the seating isn't moving and neither are the in ceiling speakers. When I installed the in ceiling speakers I built enclosures in the rafters out of 3/4" MDF and I'm not moving those and I don't want to repair holes in the ceiling only to cut others. The room is configured as it's going to stay and I'm just looking for suggestions on what might work best for the RH as well as what FH configuration to use with them.

I'll throw up a couple of pictures to show where the seating and surround speakers are as well as a sketch of the top view of my room with the existing in ceiling speakers noted. My existing FH speakers are in location "1".
Just to confirm - have you tried configuring your existing speakers as FH/TR? I have a similar layout to yours, and for some of the reasons you mentioned ended up deciding to switch away from a TF/TR config to FH/TR. The system will pull some of the FR signal down into the surrounds, which is a bit odd during test tones, but when listening to actual content I found it to be the best compromise when listening to Atmos, DSU, DTS:X and Neural:X content. (One difference in my system is the addition of FWs - but for DSU they are of course not utilized)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
217 Posts
Just to confirm - have you tried configuring your existing speakers as FH/TR? I have a similar layout to yours, and for some of the reasons you mentioned ended up deciding to switch away from a TF/TR config to FH/TR. The system will pull some of the FR signal down into the surrounds, which is a bit odd during test tones, but when listening to actual content I found it to be the best compromise when listening to Atmos, DSU, DTS:X and Neural:X content. (One difference in my system is the addition of FWs - but for DSU they are of course not utilized)
No, I haven't tried that. Mine have always been configured as FH/RH. Maybe I'll try assigning the in ceilings as TR and see if that changes the way I feel about it. Thanks jrogers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
310 Posts
No, I haven't tried that. Mine have always been configured as FH/RH. Maybe I'll try assigning the in ceilings as TR and see if that changes the way I feel about it. Thanks jrogers.
Have you tried the FH and TM configuration? Your rear ceiling speakers are in the TM location, so why not use that configuration? I have mine in FH and TM and they sound incredible.


Cheers,
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,901 Posts
Here you go:

For Front Heights:
Azimuth: +/- 10 degrees
(Radial) Elevation: +/- 10 degrees

For Rear Heights:
Azimuth: +/- 15 degrees
(Radial) Elevation: +/- 15 degrees
Such limitations are pure laziness on the part of 1st gen Atmos / DTS decoders.

There is no material difference between a speaker at a pre-determined "Atmos spec" position in terms of how the audio chips render the objects to their final mix at those speaker terminals, compared to some other arbitrary position. In both cases, the speaker position is simply a 3-vector and must be input either way to the ambiphonic rasterizer chip.

I had hoped that Yamaha's 3D DSP would actually do this azimuth/elevation angle calibration/compensation properly but apparently the 3D speaker settings get ignored as soon as Atmos / DTS:X gets enabled? Seems completely __ded to me. It's not like the DSP or decoder chips aren't used all the time for Atmos / DTS:X anyway.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,425 Posts
Such limitations are pure laziness on the part of 1st gen Atmos / DTS decoders.

There is no material difference between a speaker at a pre-determined "Atmos spec" position in terms of how the audio chips render the objects to their final mix at those speaker terminals, compared to some other arbitrary position. In both cases, the speaker position is simply a 3-vector and must be input either way to the ambiphonic rasterizer chip.

I had hoped that Yamaha's 3D DSP would actually do this azimuth/elevation angle calibration/compensation properly but apparently the 3D speaker settings get ignored as soon as Atmos / DTS:X gets enabled? Seems completely __ded to me. It's not like the DSP or decoder chips aren't used all the time for Atmos / DTS:X anyway.
I'm not 100% sure, but I think the yamaha CX-A5100 will use the angles for atmos /dts-x.

But could be wrong..

Sent from my LG-H812 using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,559 Posts
Don't work for Dish and didn't mean to imply they deliver any Atmos content.

DD+ has plenty of new features over DD, but the most common reason it is chosen is because it is a more efficient codec. The only reason I care which is used is because IME DD+ sounds better because it is limited to 6.1Mbps instead of 640kbps and even if both are at 640, + sounds better.

Actually no. DD+ is designed to sound better at *lower* bitrates like 384/320/256kbps, or 7.1


Roger Dressler talked about due to the packet size requirements that DD @640kbps on Blu-ray actually had probably inaudible but better performance than DD+ at that rate. Anything higher than 640kbps was wasted data.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
217 Posts
Have you tried the FH and TM configuration? Your rear ceiling speakers are in the TM location, so why not use that configuration? I have mine in FH and TM and they sound incredible.


Cheers,
I did try FH and TM for a few days and it didn't work for me. It may be different if my TM speakers were directly over the top of the seating but they are cheated forward about three and a half feet. I did switch to FH/TR and that is a bit better but I'm still toying with the idea of putting a set of RH or TR speakers behind me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,233 Posts
What are some titles you guys really think benefit from Neural:X? My initial trials haven't been that impressive, but that is mostly with The Force Awakens which honestly hasn't sounded that impressive no matter what I use.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
8,184 Posts
If you don't think The Force Awakens sounds impressive, then you have some setup/room acoustic problems....
+1 and that goes for pretty much all neural:X
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,233 Posts
If you don't think The Force Awakens sounds impressive, then you have some setup/room acoustic problems....
Don't think so. It's professionally designed and calibrated. I can play plenty of impressive stuff, but TFA is underwhelming. And I've seen others say so as well.

I haven't watched the film all the way through, and was just skipping around to various parts. If you have a scene you can recommend that is impressive, I can try it out next time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: muad'dib

·
Registered
Joined
·
72 Posts
If my room has constraints for additional speakers beyond my 5.2 setup, could I get benefit with front heights close to the ceiling pointed down towards the listening level of the two main positions on my couch? I had front heights and with DSX on my 4311 I did not feel they helped enough so ended up taking them down. I would be interested in ATMOS and DTS:X but only if the two front height speakers would work.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
8,184 Posts
Don't think so. It's professionally designed and calibrated. I can play plenty of impressive stuff, but TFA is underwhelming. And I've seen others say so as well.

I haven't watched the film all the way through, and was just skipping around to various parts. If you have a scene you can recommend that is impressive, I can try it out next time.
Opening battle.

When they first get in the melinium falcon

When the X wing fighters come save Han Solo et al

Ending battle.

Pretty much the whole movie
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,385 Posts
Star Wars TFA was less than impressive at a somewhat local "giant screen" theater with Atmos, but at home just using the DSU (yeah, I know that this is the DTS:X thread) or even straight 7.1, it sounds very good. My room has been measured and some reasonable treatments installed (by myself so that I could monitor the improvements) and then Anthem ARC used for final tweaks which really get the frequency response right "on the curves."

That doesn't mean that a room with similar things like me couldn't have something doing too much absorption of a certain frequency range, or too much reflection of another that happens to correlate to some of the frequencies used in The Force Awakens, but I would think that other movies would be impacted as well.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
16,643 Posts
What are some titles you guys really think benefit from Neural:X? My initial trials haven't been that impressive, but that is mostly with The Force Awakens which honestly hasn't sounded that impressive no matter what I use.
Do you like animated flicks? ...3D?

This one's ↓ supposed to be 'good' with dts Neural:X



It's pretty good already on its own (I know, it's in my animated BR 3D collection - Dolby TrueHD 7.1).
 
1921 - 1940 of 4251 Posts
Top