AVS Forum banner
1161 - 1180 of 4594 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,592 Posts
Has DTS:X been implemented via FW yet? Just saw there is a title out in it now, American Ultra.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
329 Posts
Hello


Can you tell med if i am able to run an 9.1.2 Dolby atmos setup with my Yamaha CX-A5100 ?



Thanks :)
You can't.
I think you can.

Well, it depends what one means by the 9 in this case. ;) We don't actually have any discrete 9.1 channel content do we and effectively never will now that we have 3D object based sound. It will just be the number and location of speakers (output channels).

So if the 9 in this case is meant to be front wides, then no, however, if it is as some manufacturers kind of used for PLIIz, front height, then the 5100 allows you to have front and rear presence channels assigned individually, so you can have e.g. the fronts as Presence (standard Yamaha style on the front wall positioned very like PLIIz speakers) and then have the rears assigned as overheads and placed above the MLP (slightly back from it probably, per the pic in the setup OSD). Or vice versa (which might be better) FP as overhead a bit in front of MLP and the RPs as presence providing more fill and height at the back.

Or are we going to call this 7.1.2.2 or something crazy? :)

Given the front has the "extra" centre speaker versus the rear this would be my preference for a balanced layout. You then have 3 speakers up front, 4 in the middle (side + overhead) and 4 at the rear.

I'm going to wait and see how the DTS:X layouts work out/compare with Atmos before setting up a new room.

Hmm, that was a bit longer response than I had intended.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
825 Posts
I think you can.

Well, it depends what one means by the 9 in this case. ;) We don't actually have any discrete 9.1 channel content do we and effectively never will now that we have 3D object based sound. It will just be the number and location of speakers (output channels).
Well, the numbers are supposed to indicate discrete channels and not the number of speakers. So the 5100 can only do 7.1.4.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
329 Posts
Well, the numbers are supposed to indicate discrete channels and not the number of speakers. So the 5100 can only do 7.1.4.
True enough. So I suppose the original question is a bit moot, in that there are no (to my knowledge) 9.x discrete formats?

Indeed are there any formats with more than 11 channels? If that's the case I wouldn't say it "only" does 7.1.4, it would do the max available for the formats it supports (assuming it will fully support the DTS:x formats and it doesn't do Auro (yet?) as that presumably is a little different in layout).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
825 Posts
Since atmos and dts:x at least aren't channel based you can have much more speakers if the avp support it and up to 22.1.10 in hometheaters. The Trinnov Altitude32 for instance. But the 5100 support only 7.1.4 no matter how many speakers you connect to it.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,470 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1,168 ·
Well, the numbers are supposed to indicate discrete channels and not the number of speakers. So the 5100 can only do 7.1.4.
Why couldn't you use one pair of the Atmos speakers as front heights... I seem to recall that being an option. If it were wides then i think it might not work.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
825 Posts
Why couldn't you use one pair of the Atmos speakers as front heights... I seem to recall that being an option. If it were wides then i think it might not work.
You still won't get 9.1.2 the way you want. But you can choose between front height (presence), atmos enabled and ceiling mounted.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
329 Posts
That being said, I think if you have the fronts set as height (presence) and use DSU it will give you an every bit as good (or better) effect than PLIIz does/did, which is presumably where the 9.x idea is coming from.

We are only talking the semantics of 9.x as being 9 discrete channels (which as mentioned likely does not even exist), the CX-A5100 will allow the speakers to be configured in the same way as a 9 output channel PLIIx setup, which may be what the original question actually was. :)

So adding in the extra .2 overhead (albeit overhead "rears") as the extra 2 speaker outputs may be the 9.1.2 that was intended. I.e. as a speaker layout.

Perhaps Yamaha could add additional position options to set the rear presence as e.g. FO when the other set is FP.

I'm actually considering that layout, the idea being my FPs can be the same model speaker as my front 3) and experimenting with the 2 x overheads positioned in front and behind the listener. It may be if one uses this layout the unit positions sounds as if they were directly above the listener and then you just have to put the speakers a bit in front or behind so your ears/brain pick up the sound better than the null point directly above the head.

Experimentation is perhaps needed here to determine if FP or FO works better and also how DTS:X will handle this.

I wonder if DTS:X will also bring height measurement to other speakers than the presence for example which would be cool if unlikely.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
329 Posts
Just to let everyone know, I solved my power on volume issue.

It turns out I had enabled volume as one of the settings that is saved to a scene and this apparently overrides the power-on volume setting.:laugh:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
16,643 Posts
Question for owners:

Regarding mic measurements, the "boomerang" has three different spots for the mic; how many mic measurements can you take all together (horizontal and vertical angles), and how many does Yamaha recommend @ minimum?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,470 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1,173 ·
Question for owners:

Regarding mic measurements, the "boomerang" has three different spots for the mic; how many mic measurements can you take all together (horizontal and vertical angles), and how many does Yamaha recommend @ minimum?
There are 3 lower measurements, and one high measurement as I recall.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
16,643 Posts
There are 3 lower measurements, and one high measurement as I recall.
Thx. So, four different mic positions all together? Do you know which exact page from the 5100's instruction manual on the YPAO recommended set of mic measurements?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,470 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1,175 · (Edited)
Thx. So, four different mic positions all together? Do you know which exact page from the 5100's instruction manual on the YPAO recommended set of mic measurements?
Pages 48-50. On page 51 they talk about doing a 8 position too. So basically if you want to do a single position it is 1, but if you want the height/angle it is 3 more spots. If you do the multiple it would be 8+4.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,783 Posts
Thx. So, four different mic positions all together? Do you know which exact page from the 5100's instruction manual on the YPAO recommended set of mic measurements?

YPAO measurements for EQ are separate from the angle measurements. After the 1-8 EQ measurements, it asks if you want to do angles. If you do, it's four more positions as was already shared.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
145 Posts
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
16,643 Posts
Pages 48-50. On page 51 they talk about doing a 8 position too. So basically if you want to do a single position it is 1, but if you want the height/angle it is 3 more spots. If you do the multiple it would be 8+4.
YPAO measurements for EQ are separate from the angle measurements. After the 1-8 EQ measurements, it asks if you want to do angles. If you do, it's four more positions as was already shared.

Thanks a bunch to you both: 12 position mic measurements total, including the four height/angle ones.


* We came a long way from the 70's stereo receivers of Yamaha and all Pioneer, Marantz, Kenwood... Remember those, with beautiful large/wide windows for the analog tuner and four meters for fine-tuning, reception, power/watts, and ? ...All the knobs, Marantz gyro wheel for the tuner, bass, mid, treble tone and balance controls, two pairs of speaker binding posts (A/B), two phono inputs with various filter switches (subsonic, supersonic, ...) and MM/MC cart choice, microphone jacks, tone defeat switch, loudness control, large volume level with smooth/silky feel, 70 pounds, tra-la-la all that nice shiny chrome.


Now look @ today in comparison: Ethernet (up to four jacks), sophisticated room EQ system, eleven channels, two/three subs, all the applications, streaming services, firmware updates from space (control center), ...in 40 years our receivers are flying high with ceiling speakers.


Now just think another 40 years from now (2055). Do you think receivers will still exist? :) ... They'll be more like computer cards with 128 channels, and with fewer speakers but able to put the sound anywhere in 68,480 points in space from only 9 speakers total. I thought about it and that's what came up to me. :)


Yamaha, ya baby! :cool:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
329 Posts
Gah, I tried to add a quote mid reply and the forum nuked my post. :(

Short version (aren't you glad): Take more than 1 measurement even for a single MLP as it expands the sweet spot.


Getting a little off topic ...

Regarding NorthSky's comment on points in space, I'm sure we have well more than 68,480 available right now even with 5.1.2 Atmos - or indeed in stereo depending on how fine a digital volume control can adjust each of the two channels, but maybe you mean we'll be supporting that many objects. :)

I can see that being really cool for some of the space sim games appearing with thousands of ships on screen at once, it would be kind of amazing to have each ship emitting several sounds at the same time (despite the fact we should hear nothing in space!) e.g. engine hum shield hum and then additional objects per ship when a weapon is fired.

The question is then if the brain can cope with that many, maybe it would become a muddy mess, but even having sounds from e.g. 50 nearby units with each having 10 or so sounds would be nice (500 objects). If the processing by then can also simulate a much larger space, more objects become more practical too I imagine. Time will tell.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
973 Posts
The "Official" Yamaha CX-A5100 AVP Owners thread

I'm curious if anyone here has had this issue... Last time I ran YPAO on my 2050 I did a 8-point measurement in a tight 12" cluster around the MLP which did strange things to my levels. Center, overheads and subs were noticably hotter than they should have been. For example, I like to YPAO my subs with the gain knobs hot by 8dB so YPAO sets the levels at -8 allowing me to trim them to 0 after YPAO. In this situation, a single YPAO mic reading confirmed my subs were set correctly as YPAO set them to -9dB (close enough). I then ran a multi mic pass as noted above and YPAO had the subs set at -3. That's a 6dB difference. The difference on the Center and Overheads were hot by about 2-3dB after a multi mic pass compared to single measurement. Using REW as an SPL meter, it seemed the single reading was the accurate one.

Any ideas what YPAO was doing? Anyone else seen this?
 
1161 - 1180 of 4594 Posts
Top