AVS Forum banner

10481 - 10500 of 12286 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,354 Posts
If you are playing from a Strato, let me know if you have any audio drops. I had about 4-5 on that movie. SJ
You posted on K Forum that Trinnov had you switch HDMI to 1.4...
We have same setup Lumagen and Trinnov.
I am using input 7 on the Trinnov for audio (from output 1 of Lumagen) - how do I change Input 7 on Trinnov to work as 1.4...
Thanks in advance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,603 Posts
You posted on K Forum that Trinnov had you switch HDMI to 1.4...

We have same setup Lumagen and Trinnov.

I am using input 7 on the Trinnov for audio (from output 1 of Lumagen) - how do I change Input 7 on Trinnov to work as 1.4...

Thanks in advance.


Click on the HDMI output info box.
Then click on setup.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,897 Posts
Then just click on the input and it will change. So far this seems to be helping with my audio drop outs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,714 Posts
It is not just seemingly tied to the Japanese 22.2 system, it is one in the same. NHK had been vigorously developing and promoting 22.2 for many years before the more scalable immersive formats came along.
Well, I only skimmed the article to get the gist. I don't know if anyone else uses it anywhere or not. I only read about it briefly once before and never in detail. I guess what I'm getting at is what is it doing in the DTS:X system? They just decided to pick up layout configurations from everyone out there to support (i.e. Auro-3D + this Japanese 22.2 system so they're compatible with everything layout-wise?) In fact, I'm now wondering if that's why DTS:X has two LFE channels (i.e. because the Japanese system does too).

Yes, the Auro cinema formats are much different. Their 13.1 format supports a 7.1 base layer. :)
I love the Auromax cinema layout. It has speakers somewhat above ear level, height speakers at the Cinema Atmos surround height level and then a load of object capable overheads similar to Atmos overheads (unlike the regular VOG ones which are all one channel). That means it can layer sounds at 3 true height levels (ear, high and even higher on the ceiling). On paper, at least, it blows Atmos' layout away. But given the increasing lack of support for even the cinema soundtracks (which were probably Atmos hand-me-downs anyway that didn't take advantage of the Auromax capabilities to their fullest) and the lack of home support (in either that format or software for the format versions that are available at home), it all just feels like a bit of a waste. I suppose DTS:X could handle the same layout at the cinema level (converting Auro theaters over to DTS:X seems to be their speciality these days as the local Barco cinemas that were Auro are now DTS, I believe...I haven't been there lately to check, but I read they were changing to DTS:X somewhere, at least some of them), but I go to the cinema so infrequently (average twice a year when I went probably 35-90 times a year in the 1990s), it doesn't matter much.

Floor height speakers would still be cool at home, though. They'd be easy to add too (a different style stand could accommodate two bookshelf speakers at one location even). It's hard enough to get people to do proper 5.1 layouts, though, let alone 20+ speakers (just for for fronts, rears and main side surrounds that would bring my home theater total up to 24.1 from the current 17.1 layout. I really would need a Trinnov at that point, but if soundtracks used that, it might be worth it. As it is, half the Atmos soundtracks are pretty disappointing. I've been doing a test with my Zidoo and picked the newer Murder on the Orient Express for some reason and I have it paused at the moment halfway through and the only real Atmos level effects to this point were at the avalanche scene (wind, thunder, etc. during and then when the one guy asks Hercule a question his voice was at the right upper height speaker in reply; otherwise nothing that stood out the rest of the movie and most of other than a few train bits were "front biased" to a fault (i.e. mostly in the front speakers). Pretty as the visuals are (and by that I mean Daisy Ridley, of course not the also great looking train and scenery ;)), it's not the best Atmos example. In fact, it's a good example of how Atmos is too subtly used in half the movies out there. Yes, thunder is nice overhead. Now go watch Fury with Brad Pitt to see what immersion actually means by comparison! :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,223 Posts
Well, I only skimmed the article to get the gist. I don't know if anyone else uses it anywhere or not. I only read about it briefly once before and never in detail. I guess what I'm getting at is what is it doing in the DTS:X system? They just decided to pick up layout configurations from everyone out there to support (i.e. Auro-3D + this Japanese 22.2 system so they're compatible with everything layout-wise?) In fact, I'm now wondering if that's why DTS:X has two LFE channels (i.e. because the Japanese system does too).
The consumer DTS:X system has the ability to support the bottom speakers because the cinema DTS:X system supports them. Same for LFE2. DTS:X (and MDA which came before) was designed to work in any cinema configuration.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,714 Posts
The consumer DTS:X system has the ability to support the bottom speakers because the cinema DTS:X system supports them. Same for LFE2. DTS:X (and MDA which came before) was designed to work in any cinema configuration.
That doesn't necessarily preclude the possibility of what they based the cinema system on and was the cinema system designed first or concurrently with the home system? It seemed like they both go reintroduced about the same time (haven broken off the cinema division many years prior). Given their late start, they had ample opportunity to consider the Auro and Atmos layout and quite possibly the Japanese system as well. I somehow doubt those overlapping speakers between both other systems are just a coincidence at this point.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
49 Posts
Gigabit internet connection, it's not more complicated :D
Norway probably has one of the best infrastructure in the world.
https://www.lifeinnorway.net/the-worlds-fastest-mobile-internet/

I have Asus Aimesh wlan router boxes and main router is connected to internet.
This is about avoiding long LAN cables and getting strong wireless inside the building. No separate wifi range extenders necessary.
This also offers the opportunity to set 1 aimesh router close to HIFI units and all boxes connected with short CAT 7 cables or using wireless.
I built the wireless at home due to need to stream over wireless inside the building. My Trinnov uses short CAT 7 cable.
https://www.asus.com/us/Networking/RT-AC86U/
https://www.asus.com/support/FAQ/1035087/
https://www.amazon.com/Dual-band-Dual-core-AiProtection-Compatible-RT-AC86U/dp/B0752FD3XJ
There are also faster models but this is cost efficient old reliable proven product.

WIFI speed promises are normally high and ookla end to end test values over wifi show reality.
I only get close to 500Bps over wifi in ookla test to internet from old 2012 linux PC.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,299 Posts
I wouldn't say everything, exactly, although it is nice.



For example:

1> No 4K feeds (AFAIK) on Apple iTunes content (I assume AppleTV+ as well)

2> No Atmos on Apple Content (certainly not on a 2K projector whereas ATV 4K does have it)

3> Requires 4K display to get any form of Atmos period with ANY app (at least all I've tried) (ATV 4K gets Atmos with Netflix, Disney+ and iTunes content without a 4K set)



I've got virtually all the app type boxes here save like Xbox and some esoteric boxes:



1>AppleTV 4K (plus two 1st gen not used anymore; 1 second gen used on a 720p set)

2>FireTV 4K Stick (plus 2 FireTV 4K 2nd gen units and an older FireTV stick; two not used anymore)

3>Roku 4K Stick (does do Disney+ in Atmos including The Mandalorian and does not require a 4K set)

4>NVidia Shield (2017 Pro model)

5>Zidoo X9S (3D playback off hard drive or network plus 4K support)

6>Sony PS4 (It can do 3D movies off Vudu streaming on top of gaming)
Thanks for this rundown. Still no one size fits all streamer then. SMH
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,563 Posts
Just a point of clarification. “Native” Auro3D is purely channel-based. No objects, no reverberation (aside from what is in the source recording or added by the mixers).

The adding of reverb is part of the AuroMatic upmixer.
Roger, thanks for your posts & clarifications. Your industry knowledge always adds to a discussion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,132 Posts
Norway probably has one of the best infrastructure in the world.
https://www.lifeinnorway.net/the-worlds-fastest-mobile-internet/

I have Asus Aimesh wlan router boxes and main router is connected to internet.
This is about avoiding long LAN cables and getting strong wireless inside the building. No separate wifi range extenders necessary.
This also offers the opportunity to set 1 aimesh router close to HIFI units and all boxes connected with short CAT 7 cables or using wireless.
I built the wireless at home due to need to stream over wireless inside the building. My Trinnov uses short CAT 7 cable.
https://www.asus.com/us/Networking/RT-AC86U/
https://www.asus.com/support/FAQ/1035087/
https://www.amazon.com/Dual-band-Dual-core-AiProtection-Compatible-RT-AC86U/dp/B0752FD3XJ
There are also faster models but this is cost efficient old reliable proven product.

WIFI speed promises are normally high and ookla end to end test values over wifi show reality.
I only get close to 500Bps over wifi in ookla test to internet from old 2012 linux PC.
I have 750Mbps over wifi against Ookla speedtest (multiple iphones, ipads and laptops connected). All other devices connected via wire (CAT6). My ISP does actually not offer Gbit internet-connection where I live, but as the only one in this area I managed to get it (they had the capacity, but not for all).

Considering 10Gbps network internally, but still the cost is very high (I have a "sever-room" with 400+ TB stacked, generates a lot of heat!).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,114 Posts
thanks very much for the explanation - I think that I did not interpret your FAIL diagrams correctly. This is helpful
regards
I'd like to add that pushing the Top Rears further to the back than the 120 degrees azimuth Trinnov recommends, also brings them closer to the intended DTS:X position. Even if you don't want to optimize for Auro3D, a position at 135 degrees azimuth (as FAIL recommends) could therefore IMO still be preferable. Just my 2 cts ...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
233 Posts
Now that I’ve got the DTS X pro update I’m planning to add in more speakers.
Currently 7.1.4, I’m going to put in 2 rears for 9 bed channels, a centre top for Auro and DTS X, and another sub. This will max out my altitude 16 at 9.2.5.
My current sub is positioned under the screen in the centre and I was going to put the second one in the centre at the back wall, to even out the frequency dip (this was quite pronounced pre the altitude, now smoother but still there on the graph). Should I get the trinnov to use these subs together as one speaker to achieve this or is it better to not worry about the dip and have more directional low bass?
Also I have a standard Netflix subscription and the sound is very compressed compared to blu Ray. I don’t have 4K yet, but is it worth the upgrade from a sonic point of view? Will I also then get atmos? Currently I think it is all 5.1 which I then upmix.
Thanks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
42 Posts
I'd like to add that pushing the Top Rears further to the back than the 120 degrees azimuth Trinnov recommends, also brings them closer to the intended DTS:X position. Even if you don't want to optimize for Auro3D, a position at 135 degrees azimuth (as FAIL recommends) could therefore IMO still be preferable. Just my 2 cts ...
Thanks Maikel
I attach a diagram of my current front, surround, surround back and subs which are fixed, no centre. The Lh,Rh,Ch,Lsh and Rsh positions are what I am working on. Do you see any value in placing Lh and Rh at even 50 or 55 degrees so that they are closer to a mid position between the front speakers and side surrounds?
regards
Jose
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,132 Posts
I'd like to add that pushing the Top Rears further to the back than the 120 degrees azimuth Trinnov recommends, also brings them closer to the intended DTS:X position. Even if you don't want to optimize for Auro3D, a position at 135 degrees azimuth (as FAIL recommends) could therefore IMO still be preferable. Just my 2 cts ...
I have my Ltr/Rtr at +/- 125 degrees. Works fairly well for all formats. Keep in mind that you have remapping helping out as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,031 Posts
Watched more DTS:X movies with the Pro upgrade
Full Movies
1)Huntsman Winter War
2)Atomic Blonde

Multiple Scenes with @Alan Gouger
1) Battle Ship
2) Harry Potter DH1 (3D)

Very impressed so far.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,114 Posts
Thanks Maikel
I attach a diagram of my current front, surround, surround back and subs which are fixed, no centre. The Lh,Rh,Ch,Lsh and Rsh positions are what I am working on. Do you see any value in placing Lh and Rh at even 50 or 55 degrees so that they are closer to a mid position between the front speakers and side surrounds?
regards
Jose
If it is possible, I would move the surrounds to 80 degrees, the rears to 140 degrees azimuth, and toe-out the L/R fronts to create some beneficial side wall reflections. I would not spread the front height further than you already have. You'd better move them a bit closer together so they end up at about +/- 40 degrees, and put them in-line with your L and R fronts (moving them into the room). If you need to keep them on/near the beam, I would put them at 35 degrees azimuth.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,714 Posts
If it is possible, I would move the surrounds to 80 degrees, the rears to 140 degrees azimuth, and toe-out the L/R fronts to create some beneficial side wall reflections. I would not spread the front height further than you already have. You'd better move them a bit closer together so they end up at about +/- 40 degrees, and put them in-line with your L and R fronts (moving them into the room). If you need to keep them on/near the beam, I would put them at 35 degrees azimuth.
I'd be fine with everything but trying to create side wall reflections (I know there's some disagreement out there on whether a more "live" room is better or a more "dead" room). I'd want to get rid of at least parts of the primary one as I think they muddle the image focus. Here, I used a couple of "Thomas Kinkade" tapestries to do it with some style; they even light up on the winter side with a hidden battery pack. I let the extra matrixed speakers do an extra simulated "reflection" instead, which in the case of the front wides actually helps partially cancel the side wall reflections even more (almost like a bit of cross talk cancellation, it seems as well as I get an effect with stereo material very similar to Caver's "Sonic Holography" that I use with a pair of his Amazing ribbons speakers upstairs). The sound stage is almost 100 degrees to both sides with just the Mains + Matrixed FWs. In addition, the vertical dialog lift effect actually does the same in the vertical domain as well to an extent, the same as if you had large line source drivers). It's uncanny good sounding in stereo mode that way with music, IMO. The extra wavefront arrivals probably simulate a bipole/dipole effect to some extent as well. The vocals do seem more fixed/focused in space as well, IMO (to the contrary of what some might imagine using 6 speakers for a front-only matrixed stereo effect.


I've also found that the Dolby Atmos "Helicopter" demo is great for testing panning image consistency at the bed level as well as height level. Just disable the overheads and Atmos will place them at bed level instead. You should have a nice smooth and stable image going in a big circle (or ellipse with most room dimensions). If it hesitates or gets softer/louder in spots or the imaging fades or gets weak, you can tell what you have to do to fix (adjust levels or move speakers, etc.) I like to check the demo from all seats to make sure it's at least reasonable imaging outside the MLP area above and below. Basically, if the helicopter images very well at both levels, you can probably count on imaging for everything to do well as it covers the entire 360 arc across both layers when tested separately.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,114 Posts
I'd be fine with everything but trying to create side wall reflections (I know there's some disagreement out there on whether a more "live" room is better or a more "dead" room). I'd want to get rid of at least parts of the primary one as I think they muddle the image focus.
It's a delicate balancing act between focus and envelopment, but if you hit the sweet spot you can get both. Apart from the right amount of toe-ing, it involves enabling the beneficial ipsi-lateral (same side) reflections, while at the same time killing the contra-lateral reflections.

I let the extra matrixed speakers do an extra simulated "reflection" instead, which in the case of the front wides actually helps partially cancel the side wall reflections even more (almost like a bit of cross talk cancellation, it seems as well as I get an effect with stereo material very similar to Caver's "Sonic Holography" that I use with a pair of his Amazing ribbons speakers upstairs).
Are you adding some kind of delay to those matrixed speakers at the wides location?

Probably the simplest way of using Wides with formats (and up-mixers) that do not use them, is to copy the front speaker on the same side, and add a delay of 3-5 ms. In that way the Wides mimic the beneficial lateral reflections that are know to increase envelopment, but it allows more control (SPL, delay, eq'ing). An added benefit is that the fronts can be further toed in (e.g. 45 degrees) to allow cross-firing (time-intensity trading) without losing L/R front envelopment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,714 Posts
It's a delicate balancing act between focus and envelopment, but if you hit the sweet spot you can get both. Apart from the right amount of toe-ing, it involves enabling the beneficial ipsi-lateral (same side) reflections, while at the same time killing the contra-lateral reflections.
Wouldn't that imply a certain level of on-axis versus off-axis response for the toe-in to have any appreciable effect whatsoever? A speaker with excellent off-axis response wouldn't change its behavior very much with small amounts of toe-in.

Are you adding some kind of delay to those matrixed speakers at the wides location?
I've set the AVR powering them to add a slight delay (add extra 2 feet to distance), but I'm not sure it's actually active with the 7.1 inputs, which often override all settings. They are slightly further away from the MLP, though so the mains still take precedence. I'm not saying it's exactly like Sonic Holography by any means, only that the expanded soundstage and extra presence to vocals reminds me of it. There's an extra delay from the front height speakers as well (given they're a few feet further away), which should simulate a bipole type reflection (as opposed to a dipole one). The presence effect means it needs a bit more added to the heights to lift the dialog up and I only set it to 1/3 screen height raising anyway to keep a bit more separation from the front heights and not raise it too much above the rest of the bed level speakers. It's a gentle slope and barely noticeable for the various panning Atmos demos, but enough to keep the dialog well onto the screen instead of at its base.

Without significant delay, it doesn't sound at all like reverb (I'll leave that for Auro modes), but when I press the MUTE button on the AVR amps powering the heights and front wides, you can hear the soundstage collapse back to normal 2-channel and switch back and forth instantly to compare with and without the extra 4 speakers. It's, in my opinion significantly clearer sounding, wider, deeper and with a more 'solid' sounding image of vocals with the extra 4 speakers on. It was kind of accidental in the sense I didn't add those speakers to improve stereo, but for cheap and dirty front wides, surround #1 and a dialog lift effect. But comparing, I couldn't help but notice the improvement. I've since played with the mix to tweak it (and the matrixed speakers in general) for the smoothest blend between the other speakers from all the seats, not just the MLP (surround #1 greatly affects the 2nd/3rd row as they sit between the second and third row with side surrounds between the first and second row, but surround #1 has far less impact on the front row, for example as it tends to blend with side and rear from that angle, which already phantom imaged through there anyway).

What I would do if I went full discrete is re-purpose the mixers to keep the side surround array for the FW, SS and SS#1 speakers while letting the object render pass through them discretely. That would make it very much like Cinema Atmos.
 
10481 - 10500 of 12286 Posts
Top