AVS Forum banner

60321 - 60340 of 60419 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
77 Posts
I would still lean towards green (with apologies to Dr. Seuss :) ), but it's hard to know which compromise will work best for you.
Just to triple check, did you mean to say you still lean towards the speakers in front of the lights (i.e. further forward into the room from the listener position, and marked with the blue markers)? Top view is here - just wanted to check. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,877 Posts
Just to triple check, did you mean to say you still lean towards the speakers in front of the lights (i.e. further forward into the room from the listener position, and marked with the blue markers)? Top view is here - just wanted to check. :)
Side topic. Those can lights are wired in series (daisey chained). So the wire enters one of the cans, and then routes thru the other 3 Basically, that 4 sided box with a can in each corner has 3 sides connected by wire. Dunno such 3 sides. So speaker wire should run perpendicular to the electrical I would think.

Not sure if the close proximity of a speaker (blue +) near the can will cause issues/hum.

Just trying to help.

-T
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
77 Posts
Side topic. Those can lights are wired in series (daisey chained). So the wire enters one of the cans, and then routes thru the other 3 Basically, that 4 sided box with a can in each corner has 3 sides connected by wire. Dunno such 3 sides. So speaker wire should run perpendicular to the electrical I would think.

Not sure if the close proximity of a speaker (blue +) near the can will cause issues/hum.

Just trying to help.

-T
Yea, you bring up a good point for sure. The joists run right-to-left in my "top view" picture above, so my thinking was that as long as I have the speaker wire be in the next "cavity" over (separated by a joist) it would hopefully be ok. I could be wrong there, though. I believe my joists run on 16" centers, so that would mean the speaker would be 16" away from the light - but separated by a wooden joist. I could always ask for the speaker wire to be attached to the far side of that joist cavity to get it further away from the light power line. Or do you think even that may not be enough?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,877 Posts
Yea, you bring up a good point for sure. The joists run right-to-left in my "top view" picture above, so my thinking was that as long as I have the speaker wire be in the next "cavity" over (separated by a joist) it would hopefully be ok. I could be wrong there, though. I believe my joists run on 16" centers, so that would mean the speaker would be 16" away from the light - but separated by a wooden joist. I could always ask for the speaker wire to be attached to the far side of that joist cavity to get it further away from the light power line. Are do you think even that may not be enough?
That separation should be fine. when I had my house built as long as they had electrical wires running vertically in the wall on one side of a 2x4 stud, it was okay to put other wiring on the other side of the stud 16 inches away.

I've seen homes under construction where speaker wire was on one side of a stud and electrical wiring directly on the other side. Separated by the stud itself. Which is 1 and 3/4 inches. Seems too close to me. :)

-T
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,093 Posts
Just to triple check, did you mean to say you still lean towards the speakers in front of the lights (i.e. further forward into the room from the listener position, and marked with the blue markers)? Top view is here - just wanted to check. :)
Sorry, yes, I meant what you are designating as blue--the middle of the three options you listed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
724 Posts
there is a receiver or software out there that shows you a visual representation of Dolby Atmos objects in a 3D animated grid, so you can tell what the soundtrack is supposed to be doing.

also, the DTS:X app for XboxSeriesX has a feature that lets you use the controller to pan the test sound anywhere in your room, up/down, all over; kind of a neat live demo. It lets you pan the sound anywhere in the room; including middle overhead, and lets you adjust heights as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,184 Posts
there is a receiver or software out there that shows you a visual representation of Dolby Atmos objects in a 3D animated grid, so you can tell what the soundtrack is supposed to be doing.
It's on the Trinnov Altitude line. At that price point, very few have access to it. It'd be nice if Dolby had a PC app/viewer. Even if some of us couldn't listen to it at the same time in Atmos, I'd still like to know where certain objects are physically placed in some of their demos and it'd be pretty easy to figure out on them knowing where they image. Better yet, if they could mute or better yet solo objects while displaying them, it would tell you where any sound was placed on the internal grid without any guesswork.

also, the DTS:X app for XboxSeriesX has a feature that lets you use the controller to pan the test sound anywhere in your room, up/down, all over; kind of a neat live demo. It lets you pan the sound anywhere in the room; including middle overhead, and lets you adjust heights as well.
Now that would be awesome to have as you could test placement of phantom images sound anywhere in the room, especially in areas you might thing are problem spots or whatever. I'm definitely thinking of moving to XBox from PS4 now that it's obvious Sony refuses to support Atmos or X on their Playstation hardware in favor of some homemade format that's only thus far optimized for headphone usage. They should have that IN ADDITION to Atmos and X not "instead of" when it's not supported by ANY AVR/AVP software for speaker use.

...

Meanwhile, in other news, I just ordered "The Gordian Knot" (Gordon Goodwin) on Pure Audio Blu-Ray (also includes a CD copy). It has Auro 11.1 and Dolby Atmos versions of the album on the Blu-Ray. It's supposedly '30s/'40s style Big Band music. I'll likely post a review after I get it. It's coming from Germany so it might be awhile (still waiting on my Kraftwerk 3-D Box Set from the UK almost 2 months later).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24 Posts
It's on the Trinnov Altitude line. At that price point, very few have access to it. It'd be nice if Dolby had a PC app/viewer. Even if some of us couldn't listen to it at the same time in Atmos, I'd still like to know where certain objects are physically placed in some of their demos and it'd be pretty easy to figure out on them knowing where they image. Better yet, if they could mute or better yet solo objects while displaying them, it would tell you where any sound was placed on the internal grid without any guesswork.



Now that would be awesome to have as you could test placement of phantom images sound anywhere in the room, especially in areas you might thing are problem spots or whatever. I'm definitely thinking of moving to XBox from PS4 now that it's obvious Sony refuses to support Atmos or X on their Playstation hardware in favor of some homemade format that's only thus far optimized for headphone usage. They should have that IN ADDITION to Atmos and X not "instead of" when it's not supported by ANY AVR/AVP software for speaker use.

...

Meanwhile, in other news, I just ordered "The Gordian Knot" (Gordon Goodwin) on Pure Audio Blu-Ray (also includes a CD copy). It has Auro 11.1 and Dolby Atmos versions of the album on the Blu-Ray. It's supposedly '30s/'40s style Big Band music. I'll likely post a review after I get it. It's coming from Germany so it might be awhile (still waiting on my Kraftwerk 3-D Box Set from the UK almost 2 months later).
I don't really like the DTSX viewer, it changes the volume depending on the layer displayed in a way that is not natural to me. But good on you to go Xbox this time around. Dolby atmos, DTSX and soon Dolby Vision, the Xbox is the console for HT enthousiasts!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
724 Posts
Yes, PS5 3d audio with headphones only is just odd, no Atmos or DTSX for games. XSX is it! Dolby Vision & Atmos/DTSX for games! I had hoped more games would officially support spatial sound but they keep coming. Cyberpunk2077 I played in Atmos on my PC, it was amazing!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Krobar

·
Registered
Joined
·
24 Posts
Yes, PS5 3d audio with headphones only is just odd, no Atmos or DTSX for games. XSX is it! Dolby Vision & Atmos/DTSX for games! I had hoped more games would officially support spatial sound but they keep coming. Cyberpunk2077 I played in Atmos on my PC, it was amazing!
Halo Infinite too will have a huge focus on sound, Atmos was annonces early in the project. What a time to be into HT and gaming.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
189 Posts
What are the less obvious pro's/con's for using a single monopole, two monopoles in series, or bi-poles for side surrounds with Atmos? Ideally two dedicated S1, S2 channels for monopoles would be great but I'll be using my 8500H and 9.x.4 configuration for a few more years still. 8500's can't do S1, S2 so I dream of a Trinnov one day like many people with two rows...

More info, I'm debating on continuing to use my bi-poles surrounds (my only two bi-poles in my current config) from pre-atmos days, buying a two monopoles, or buying four monopoles and running two of them in series for each side. Currently I've noticed the side surround channels are hard to distinguish from rear and overhead .4 channels at times and I think it might be because they're bi-pole and phasing, but before I go buy speakers I wanted to get some thoughts. The imaging is a little odd at times and if I disable the FH/RH speakers the side surrounds still image like overhead or rears and not sides - perhaps it's phasing issues or it's the shape of my ears. ;) With two rows I could attempt to find narrow dispersion speakers and run two monopoles per side in series, one for each row. I'm not sure what real-world experience and imaging is like doing two monopoles in series for two rows.

16x23x9 room, two rows of seating, with L,C,R,FW,S,RS and FH,RH.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29,971 Posts
With two rows I could attempt to find narrow dispersion speakers and run two monopoles per side in series, one for each row. I'm not sure what real-world experience and imaging is like doing two monopoles in series for two rows.
Good idea on the narrow dispersion speakers to limit bleed to the other row. Splitting the signal to two speakers might result in a bit of comb filtering (flangy sound), but that's typically not noticeable when sitting still. If you move, like lean forward or recline, you'll hear the change in sound. What professional installers do is apply a different delay to the back row.

When you do initial calibration, all the speakers are delayed & level matched so that their sound arrives at the main listening position at the same time. If your main listening position is the middle of the front row, then sound from its Side speakers and the Centre speaker will reach you simultaneously. Sitting in the middle of the back row, say 6' back from the front row, means that the sound from the Centre speaker will take roughly 5ms longer to reach you. If you add that same amount of delay to the Side speakers for the back row, then sound from its Side speakers and the Centre speaker will arrive simultaneously.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,184 Posts
What are the less obvious pro's/con's for using a single monopole, two monopoles in series, or bi-poles for side surrounds with Atmos? Ideally two dedicated S1, S2 channels for monopoles would be great but I'll be using my 8500H and 9.x.4 configuration for a few more years still. 8500's can't do S1, S2 so I dream of a Trinnov one day like many people with two rows...

More info, I'm debating on continuing to use my bi-poles surrounds (my only two bi-poles in my current config) from pre-atmos days, buying a two monopoles, or buying four monopoles and running two of them in series for each side. Currently I've noticed the side surround channels are hard to distinguish from rear and overhead .4 channels at times and I think it might be because they're bi-pole and phasing, but before I go buy speakers I wanted to get some thoughts. The imaging is a little odd at times and if I disable the FH/RH speakers the side surrounds still image like overhead or rears and not sides - perhaps it's phasing issues or it's the shape of my ears. ;) With two rows I could attempt to find narrow dispersion speakers and run two monopoles per side in series, one for each row. I'm not sure what real-world experience and imaging is like doing two monopoles in series for two rows.

16x23x9 room, two rows of seating, with L,C,R,FW,S,RS and FH,RH.
Take a look at my setup. I use two monopoles for side surrounds (three if you count front wides as a side surround) across three rows of seats but it's not a straight array to do surround#2. It uses an active mixer so s#2 is actually side+rear (3dB separation only, but still better IMO than just a copied side array.) I do the same for front wides (main + sides), which is what Lyngdorf did for years for wides).

For Top Middle, I use a bipole speaker (PSB S50) that used to be used for surround in my old 6.1 home theater. It has wall mounted angled drivers so it's really more like two monopoles facing in opposite directions so long as you don't sit in the null point between the two drivers as was used for 5.1/6.1 surround previously. I used so-called "Scatmos" processing (Two Pro Logic center outputs) to get discrete-like output for this location.

In both cases, what I did was put the side mounted speakers between the rows of seats. That solved the bipolar imaging issue and assured on-axis response for the front row and back two rows.

The active mixers allow you to move the actual phantom image position forward or backward for the front wides and surround speakers for each row (i.e. I can have a side speaker callout seem to come from either 90 degrees or in front of or behind me as desired and/or make sure the Dolby helicopter (placed at ear level for panning tests) is nice and smooth and even.

It also allows you to have chairs closer to the side walls in a small width room and still have the sides image to your side despite having the speakers behind you.

Turn off the extra speakers and use smart memory to store correct levels for only 5.1/7.1 instead of 11.1 and you're back to surround optimized for say traditional 5.1 based sound (e.g. Straight Auro-3D 9.1). I added a speaker switch and that lets me move rear surround to the surround height position and I then have Pure Auro 9.1 and Atmos 5.1.4 without moving a single speaker or cord.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,545 Posts
What are the less obvious pro's/con's for using a single monopole, two monopoles in series, or bi-poles for side surrounds with Atmos? Ideally two dedicated S1, S2 channels for monopoles would be great but I'll be using my 8500H and 9.x.4 configuration for a few more years still. 8500's can't do S1, S2 so I dream of a Trinnov one day like many people with two rows...

More info, I'm debating on continuing to use my bi-poles surrounds (my only two bi-poles in my current config) from pre-atmos days, buying a two monopoles, or buying four monopoles and running two of them in series for each side. Currently I've noticed the side surround channels are hard to distinguish from rear and overhead .4 channels at times and I think it might be because they're bi-pole and phasing, but before I go buy speakers I wanted to get some thoughts. The imaging is a little odd at times and if I disable the FH/RH speakers the side surrounds still image like overhead or rears and not sides - perhaps it's phasing issues or it's the shape of my ears. ;) With two rows I could attempt to find narrow dispersion speakers and run two monopoles per side in series, one for each row. I'm not sure what real-world experience and imaging is like doing two monopoles in series for two rows.

16x23x9 room, two rows of seating, with L,C,R,FW,S,RS and FH,RH.
Place your bipoles between the rows so that one driver is point at front row and the other is pointing at rear row.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
179 Posts
I personally think that the height of the ear level vs the height of the height level speakers is one of the more important specs to follow if you want the full 3d sound effect.
niterida,
Thanks for the extra push to find a more optimal position for the side surrounds.

After much searching (within my soul and in this thread :)), I've decided to put the side surrounds at roughly 3 ft from the floor (1.25 times my reclined ear level, which is at the outer limit of Dolby's recommendations for surrounds). There was a proposal to mount these on rails (so I could get them out of the way for when we weren't watching something), but that has run into time/cost/implementation issues. So, these will now be mounted in the side walls.

Not sure of your exact setup but for 5.x.x you actually want the surrounds to be 20-30deg behind you not directly to the side if that helps with you height issue ?
With the side surrounds going in-wall, I'm giving some serious thought to repurposing my earlier powered side surrounds as rear surrounds sitting on stands for a 7.4.4 setup. This way, I don't have to mess with the diffusers on the rear wall and still keep those speakers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
68 Posts
Hi Guys,

I'd like your opinion on a system we are trying to build. We currently have on order all the equipment we need for a 5.2.2 system. We thought about going with a 7.2.2 set up but for right now this is up in the air.

However, my question relates to the placement of our surrounds in the 5.2.2 system. I would like your opinion as to how much we would lose by placing our surrounds in a 5.2.2 set up about 7 feet behind us? So what I'm envisioning is a set up where the surrounds are not within 110 to 120 degrees of the listening position, but more like 170 degrees. Not quite directly behind us, but not too far off. All the other speakers in the system would line up fairly close to the Dolby guidelines.

Would we be losing much by doing this? Thank you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,184 Posts
Hi Guys,

I'd like your opinion on a system we are trying to build. We currently have on order all the equipment we need for a 5.2.2 system. We thought about going with a 7.2.2 set up but for right now this is up in the air.

However, my question relates to the placement of our surrounds in the 5.2.2 system. I would like your opinion as to how much we would lose by placing our surrounds in a 5.2.2 set up about 7 feet behind us? So what I'm envisioning is a set up where the surrounds are not within 110 to 120 degrees of the listening position, but more like 170 degrees. Not quite directly behind us, but not too far off. All the other speakers in the system would line up fairly close to the Dolby guidelines.

Would we be losing much by doing this? Thank you.
You might as well call those rear surrounds at that angle because essentially that's exactly what they are. Rears don't seem to get tons of discrete use with most movies (mire often arrayed copies of the sides which are good for multiple rows if seats, but do little to enhance rear fill for the MLP, but Atmos music albums like those from Yello and Booka Shade use the rears discretely almost as much as the front mains so there's nothing wrong with having rear surrounds.

But for overhead sounds with only two speakers, I'd personally recommend the 80-100 degree range with emphasis on 80-90. After that 30-55 degrees (front height or front top). Rear tops or heights would be my last choice for only two overheads given how it's mire difficult to localize precision sounds behind you compared to in front of you to right above you. But any location is probably better than none at all. Even bouncy speakers stand a better chance of putting some of the sounds overhead than rears at 170 degrees. That's within the rear surround angle range.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
68 Posts
Thanks so much for your reply MagnumX, but I'm not sure I totally understand. I should also clarify that my 2 Atmos speakers are in ceiling speakers.

And while I agree that what I'm suggesting for placement of the speakers would normally be where rear surrounds are placed, I still intend to hook them up as surrounds. So I would have surround speakers (in a 5.2.2 set up) placed where rear surrounds would be placed in a 7.2.2 set up. I hope this makes more sense.

I'm just wondering if I would lose much by placing my surrounds where rear surrounds would normally be placed? Thank you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29,971 Posts
So what I'm envisioning is a set up where the surrounds are not within 110 to 120 degrees of the listening position, but more like 170 degrees. Not quite directly behind us, but not too far off.

Would we be losing much by doing this?
With your Surround speakers placed almost directly behind you, spread only 20 degrees apart, you will lose wrap-around envelopment AND left-vs-right separation in the surround field. That's really poor placement for a single pair of Surrounds in a 5.1 layout.

Even as part of a 7.1 layout, the Rear speakers should be at least 60 degrees apart, so that you can hear stereo separation behind you (where our human hearing is not so hot). Please reconsider.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
68 Posts
With your Surround speakers placed almost directly behind you, spread only 20 degrees apart, you will lose wrap-around envelopment AND left-vs-right separation in the surround field. That's really poor placement for a single pair of Surrounds in a 5.1 layout.

Even as part of a 7.1 layout, the Rear speakers should be at least 60 degrees apart, so that you can hear stereo separation behind you (where our human hearing is not so hot). Please reconsider.
Thanks sdurani. I appreciate your thoughts and taking the time to reply. Thanks again.
 
60321 - 60340 of 60419 Posts
Top